Queens Co. Bank v. Leavitt
New York Supreme Court
Appeal from circuit court, Queens county. Action by Queens County Bank against Eliza M. Leavitt on a promissory note for $2,800, made November 5,1888, by defendant to order of her husband, Rufus W. Leavitt, and indorsed by him to plaintiff. There was a judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals.
Read the full summary
Appeal from circuit court, Queens county. Action by Queens County Bank against Eliza M. Leavitt on a promissory note for $2,800, made November 5,1888, by defendant to order of her husband, Rufus W. Leavitt, and indorsed by him to plaintiff. There was a judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals. Laws N. T. 1884, c. 381, provides: “Section 1. A married woman may contract to the same extent, with the like effect and in the same form, as if unmarried, and she and her separate estate shall be liable thereon, whether such contract relates to her separate business or estate or otherwise, and in no…
1Opinion of the CourtDykman, J.
This action was brought upon a promissory note, of which the following is a copy: “$2,800. Flushing, November 5, 1888. Four months after date I promise to pay, to the order of Rufus W. Leavitt, twenty-eight hundred dollars, at the Queens County Bánk, Long Island City, value received. In consideration of one dollar to me in hand paid, I hereby bind my separate estate for payment of the above amount. Eliza M. Leavitt. ” At the time of the execution of this note, the maker was a married woman, the wife of the payee, Rufus W. Leavitt, and the note was made without *194consideration as between the…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Corn Exchange Insurance v. BabcockNew York Court of Appeals · 1870
- Schepp v. . CarpenterNew York Court of Appeals · 1873
- Bowery National Bank v. SniffenNew York Supreme Court · 1889
3Cited by2 opinions
- Schnitzer v. HustedCity of New York Municipal Court · 1832
- Schnitzer v. HustedCity of New York Municipal Court · 1892