Legal Opinion
Borough Bank of Brooklyn v. Mulqueen
New York Supreme Court
Decided December 15, 1910PublishedCited by 5 opinions
Action against the indorser of a promissory note.
1Opinion of the CourtCrane, J.
Can an indorser of a note held by a bank, where the maker is solvent, offset his -deposit in the bank against the -amount due on the note ?
On the 1st day of March, 1910, the defendant Mulqueen gave his note to the Borough Bank for $1,500, payable three months after date, the defendant Sparks being an indorser thereon. On April 7, 1910, the Borough Bank suspended, the Superintendent of Banks taking charge of its assets under section 19 of the Banking Law. At the time of suspension Mulqueen had a deposit to his credit in the bank of $70.26, and -Sparks a deposit to his credit of $1,179.54. This…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Bruyn v. Receiver of the Middle District BankNew York Court of Chancery · 1829
3Cited by5 opinions
- Bank of United States v. BravemanNew York Court of Appeals · 1932
- Williams v. RoseDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 1914
- Carnegie Trust Co. v. KistlerAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · 1915
- Bank of United States v. BravemanAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1931
- Lewis v. PotterPennsylvania Court of Common Pleas · 1933