Griswold v. Slocum
New York Supreme Court
This was an action against the defendant as indorser of a promissory note, in these words : “ $350. Three months from date, we promise to pay Robinson, Griswold Schaghticoke, August 16,1848. Giles Slocum & Co.” Indorsed, “William Slocum.”
Read the full summary
This was an action against the defendant as indorser of a promissory note, in these words : “ $350. Three months from date, we promise to pay Robinson, Griswold Schaghticoke, August 16,1848. Giles Slocum & Co.” Indorsed, “William Slocum.” The complaint alledged that the firm of Giles Slocum «fe Co. consisted of Giles Slocum, Nathaniel Starbuck and Benjamin Starbuck; that after the making of the note, and on the day it bore date, the same was indorsed by the defendant William Slocum, and was then delivered to the plaintiffs by Giles Slocum «fe Co. The complaint also alledged a demand, and…
1Opinion of the CourtParker, J.
The defendant can not be charged as indorser, because the promissory note is not negotiable. Can he be held liable as maker, or guarantor? It is first objected, that he can not, for the reason that the complaint is drawn solely with a view to hold him as indorser. But I do not so understand it. The complaint sets forth the history of the transaction. It is true, some unnecessary matters are stated, such as the demand of payment from Giles Slocum & Co. and notice of non-payment *404given to the defendant. The defendant not being an indorser, these steps were unnecessarily taken, and of course…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Herrick v. CarmanNew York Supreme Court · 1815
3Cited by10 opinions
- Richards v. WarringNew York Court of Appeals · 1864
- Ford v. MitchellWisconsin Supreme Court · 1862
- Richards v. WarringNew York Supreme Court · 1863
- Underwood v. HossackIllinois Supreme Court · 1865
- Herrick v. EdwardsMissouri Court of Appeals · 1904
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.