Legal Opinion

Greenwich Bank v. De Groot

New York Supreme Court

Decided March 15, 1876Published

Appeal from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, entered on the verdict of a jury in an action on a promissory note.

1Opinion of the Court

Daniels, J.:

As the only controversy existing in the case relates to the action taken, for the purpose of charging the defendant T. R. B. De Groot, as indorser, the judgment against the personal representatives of the deceased maker was free from all legal exception, and should *211be affirmed. The note was dated at the city of New York, and made payable to the order of, and indorsed by, the defendant Theodore R. B. Be Groot. It passed through the hands of two subsequent indorsers to the plaintiff. When it matured, payment of it was demanded at the place for that purpose specified in the note,…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Bank of Utica v. BenderNew York Supreme Court · 1839
  2. Lawrence v. . MillerNew York Court of Appeals · 1857
  3. Rawdon v. RedfieldThe Superior Court of New York City · 1849

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API