Mather v. Union Loan & Trust Co.
City of New York Municipal Court
Action by Boderick B. Mather against the Union Loan & Trust Company, as acceptor, and others as drawers and indorsers, of a draft. The answer alleges that the defendant is not a moneyed corporation; that the acceptance was not made in the due and regular course of its business; that it was not made at the company’s Office or place of business; and that neither its directors nor stockholders ever sanctioned or approved of the same, nor did they in any manner authorize it.
Read the full summary
Action by Boderick B. Mather against the Union Loan & Trust Company, as acceptor, and others as drawers and indorsers, of a draft. The answer alleges that the defendant is not a moneyed corporation; that the acceptance was not made in the due and regular course of its business; that it was not made at the company’s Office or place of business; and that neither its directors nor stockholders ever sanctioned or approved of the same, nor did they in any manner authorize it. The answer further alleges that the acceptance was written by the vice-president, A. J. Whittier, at his then private…
1Opinion of the CourtMcAdam, C. J.
While there is no doubt of the rule that a corporation has no right to bind itself by an accommodation indorsement or acceptance, (Wahlig v. Manufacturing Co., 5 N. Y. Supp.420; McCullough v. Moss, 5 Denio, 567; Smead v. Railroad Co., 11 Ind. 104; and see Bank v. Corset- Works, 36 N. W Rep. 696; McLellan v. File-Works, 56 Mich. 582, 23 N. W. Rep. 321,) it is still true that a corporation is liable to a 6 onaftde holder on its accommodation indorsement or acceptance, (Association v. White-Lead Co., 35 N. Y. 505,) although made for a purpose or at a place not authorized by the charter of the…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Farmers & Mechanics' Bank v. Butchers & Drovers' BankNew York Court of Appeals · 1857
- McCullough v. MossCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1846
- Life & Fire Insurance v. Mechanic Fire InsuranceNew York Supreme Court · 1831
- Hoyt v. . ThompsonNew York Court of Appeals · 1851
- McLellan v. Detroit File WorksMichigan Supreme Court · 1885
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Wahlig v. Standard Pump Manufacturing Co.City of New York Municipal Court · 1890