Gale v. . Miller
New York Court of Appeals
Appeal- from judgment of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the third judicial district, affirming a judgment in favor of defendant, Miller, entered upon a verdict and affirming an order denying a motion for a new trial. (Reported below, 1 Bans., 451; 44 Barb., 420.) This action was brought to recover the amount of a check for $156, signed “Miller & Gale,” the firm name of a former copartnership composed of defendants.
Read the full summary
Appeal- from judgment of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the third judicial district, affirming a judgment in favor of defendant, Miller, entered upon a verdict and affirming an order denying a motion for a new trial. (Reported below, 1 Bans., 451; 44 Barb., 420.) This action was brought to recover the amount of a check for $156, signed “Miller & Gale,” the firm name of a former copartnership composed of defendants. Defendant, H. C. Gale, did not answer. , The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion. The check was valid in the hands of defendant, Gale. (Smith v. Lasher, 5 Cow., 688;…
1Opinion of the Court
Johnson, C.
The check upon which this suit was brought was signed with the firm name of Miller & Gale, by H. C.‘ Gale, without the privity of his copartner, and remained in his hands until he delivered it on account of his private debt to the plaintiff. The circumstances under which he made the check were, according to his testimony, that one John H". Hover owed him $130, and was a creditor of the firm for $156 ; that he, Gale, extinguished the firm debt by giving Hover a receipt for the $130, and also thirty-six dollars in money of his own ; and that he then drew the check in question to…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Polhemus v. Prudential Realty Corp.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1907
- Knaus v. GivensSupreme Court of Missouri · 1892
- Woodson v. WoodSupreme Court of Virginia · 1888
- Tenney v. RockefellerNew York Supreme Court · 1972
- Gilchrist v. Weil, Joseph & Co.Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court · 1890