Henschel v. Mahler
Court for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors
On error from the supreme court. J. R. & H. Mahler sued Henschel in the superior court of the city of New-York in assumpsit, and sought to recover as the endorsees, against the defendant as acceptor, of a bill of exchange. There was a verdict and judgment for the plaintiffs, which was affirmed on error in the supreme court, upon which the defendant brought error here.
Read the full summary
On error from the supreme court. J. R. & H. Mahler sued Henschel in the superior court of the city of New-York in assumpsit, and sought to recover as the endorsees, against the defendant as acceptor, of a bill of exchange. There was a verdict and judgment for the plaintiffs, which was affirmed on error in the supreme court, upon which the defendant brought error here. The facts appearing on the trial are stated in the opinion of the chancellor, and, together with the opinion given in the supreme court, may be found in the report of the case in 3 Hill, 132.
1Opinion of the Court
Johnson, Senator.
I have examined the authority, cited by the chief justice, in his opinion of this case, (Chitty on Bills, 9th Amer. ed. 160,) to ascertain, whether the words “on the 31st of December of this year,” forming a part of the instrument given in evidence, could be rejected as repugnant and absurd. The only principle there referred to that will be found to bear upon this question, is, that when the instrument declared upon or given in evidence, is payable to blank or order, the drawer consents that the owner, or he for whose benefit it was made, may insert the name of a payee, to…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Davis v. SmithSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1887
- Hoffman v. Tuolumne Cty. Water Co.California Supreme Court · 1858
- Green v. DyersburgU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Tennessee · 1879
- Black v. . CaffeNew York Court of Appeals · 1852