Bank of New York v. Muskingum Branch of the Bank of Ohio
New York Court of Appeals
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Oourt. The action was brought against the defendants as endorsers of a bill of exchange as follows: “No. 1,305. Zanesville, O., July 21, 1857. 11 Sixty days after date, pay to the order of D. C. Converse, Esq., cashier, twenty-two hundred and forty dollars, as advised, and charge the same to account of “Your obedient servants, “BEAUMONT & HOLLINGSWORTH.
Read the full summary
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Oourt. The action was brought against the defendants as endorsers of a bill of exchange as follows: “No. 1,305. Zanesville, O., July 21, 1857. 11 Sixty days after date, pay to the order of D. C. Converse, Esq., cashier, twenty-two hundred and forty dollars, as advised, and charge the same to account of “Your obedient servants, “BEAUMONT & HOLLINGSWORTH. “To W. R. Eokart, 118 Broad st., New York. $2,240.” (Written across face.) “ W. R. Eokart.” (Endorsement.) “Pay to the order of Edwin Ludlow, cashier. “D. C. Converse, Or. “Edwin Ludlow, Or.” The complaint…
1Opinion of the CourtWright, J.
The question in the case, on the facts, is a narrow one. The defendants discounted a bill of exchange in the regular course of business, which was endorsed by one Converse, their cashier, and transmitted to the Ohio Life Insurance and Trust Company, in the city of New York, for collection only. Before the bill matured the trust company transferred it- to the plaintiffs as collateral security for borrowed money. The plaintiffs, at the time of such transfer, had no actual notice of the ownership of the bill by the defendants, but received the samé bona fide, and in the usual course of business.…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Farmers & Mechanics' Bank v. Butchers & Drovers' BankNew York Court of Appeals · 1857
- Meads v. . the Merchants' Bank of AlbanyNew York Court of Appeals · 1862
- Belmont Branch v. HogeThe Superior Court of New York City · 1861