Barretto v. Snowden
New York Supreme Court
This was an action of assumpsit by the endorsee against the maker of a promissory note for $1333,33; the signaturcs of the maker and endorser were admitted.
Read the full summary
This was an action of assumpsit by the endorsee against the maker of a promissory note for $1333,33; the signaturcs of the maker and endorser were admitted. The defendant proved that he applied to Samuel Corp, the payee of note» f°r the loan of a sum of money, who agreed to make the same; that he made and delivered to Corp three several notes of $1333,33 each, payable in 12 months with interest, and agreed to give him a bonus of $500 for the loan of the money; that he also procured a mortgage to be executed by his daughter to secure the payments of the notes, which at the request of Corp was…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
Savage, Ch. J.
This case presents two questions: 1st. Was Corp a competent witness 1 2d. Was the transaction usurious 1
1st. The endorser is a competent witness, unless excluded on the ground of interest. The interest to exclude a witness must be direct and certain; or, the verdict must be evidence for or against him. It is stated to be the rule in England, that in an action by the endorsee against the drawee of a bill, a prior endorser is a competent witness for the plaintiff or defendant. Chitty on Bills, 531, 2, and cases there cited. This was so decided by Lord Ellenborougb, in…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Rice v. StearnsMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1807
- Juniata Bank v. BrownSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1819
3Cited by14 opinions
- Commercial Bank v. HughesNew York Supreme Court · 1837
- Call v. PalmerSupreme Court of the United States · 1885
- Steele v. WhippleNew York Supreme Court · 1839
- In re KelloggDistrict Court, W.D. New York · 1902
- Porter v. MountNew York Supreme Court · 1865
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.