Legal Opinion

Regener v. Warner

New York Supreme Court

Decided February 27, 1899Published

1 Action by Louis C. Regener, receiver, etc., against Charles M. Warner-. ' Judgment for plaintiff.

1Opinion of the CourtMcADAM, J.

The legal proposition that “any memorandum or agreement of the parties, written upon the face, margin, or back of a bill or note contemporaneously with its execution, and intended by the parties to constitute a part of the contract, is a substantive part of the bill or note, and limits or qualifies it in the same manner as if inserted in the body of the instrument” (4 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law [2d Ed.] 140; Edw. Prom. Notes, 145; 1 Daniel, Neg. Inst. § 151; Benedict v. Cowden, 49 N. Y. 396; Dinsmore v. Duncan, 57 N. Y. 573, 579; Parsons v. Jackson, 99 U. S. 434; Barnard v. Cushing, 4 Metc. [Mass.]…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Benedict v. . CowdenNew York Court of Appeals · 1872
  2. Dinsmore v. . DuncanNew York Court of Appeals · 1874
  3. Parsons v. JacksonSupreme Court of the United States · 1879
  4. Raegener v. McDougallAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1898
  5. Regener v. HubbardNew York Supreme Court · 1898

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API