Zimmer v. Chew
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Appeal by the plaintiff, Louis L. Zimmer, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the defendants George Hagemeyer ' and others, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 22d day of March, 1898, upon the dismissal of his complaint as to such defendants by direction of the court after a trial at the New York Trial Term.
Read the full summary
Appeal by the plaintiff, Louis L. Zimmer, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the defendants George Hagemeyer ' and others, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 22d day of March, 1898, upon the dismissal of his complaint as to such defendants by direction of the court after a trial at the New York Trial Term. The action is upon a promissory note for $9,400, dated August 9, 1894, payable in six months, made by Chew and Eadie to the order of Hugh Dalzell, Jr. The indorsements are as follows : “GEO. HAGEMEYER & SONS, “FOREIGN HARDWOOD LOG. CO. “ By G.…
1Opinion of the Court
Barrett, J.:
The three grounds of the motion to dismiss raise the legal ques-r tions to be considered:
*5081. The indorsement of the note in blank by the payee Dalzell •and the production of it by the plaintiff constituted prwna facie evidence of the latter’s ownership. (4 Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law [2d ed.), 318, and cases cited.) The mere fact of subsequent indorsements does not affect this result. Presumably the ' prior holder, the plaintiff, took up the note. That view is strengthened here by the cancellation of the later indorsements.
To rebut this presumption of ownership, the defendants rely…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Columbus Watch Co. v. HodenpylNew York Court of Appeals · 1892
- Montgomery v. SchenckNew York Supreme Court · 1894
3Cited by2 opinions
- Maccarone v. HayesAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1903
- Kots v. SachsCity of New York Municipal Court · 1945