Braman v. Hess
New York Supreme Court
THIS was án action of assumpsit by the endorsee against the endorser of a promissory note;; the cause, was tried at the Mont* gomery circuit, irj 1815,. before Mr. J. Yates. • The note was for 343 dollars and 25 cents, and was 'dráwn by one Edward Williams, j.un., .in favour of the' defendant and ■John Yerdan, and by them endorsed to the plaintiff.
Read the full summary
THIS was án action of assumpsit by the endorsee against the endorser of a promissory note;; the cause, was tried at the Mont* gomery circuit, irj 1815,. before Mr. J. Yates. • The note was for 343 dollars and 25 cents, and was 'dráwn by one Edward Williams, j.un., .in favour of the' defendant and ■John Yerdan, and by them endorsed to the plaintiff. The defendan-t offered to show, in mitigation of damages, that the trans- ' fer of the note, by the endorser to the endorsee, was made on ' ■ ¿ ■ X . ' , . . ' .. . , a discount of .90 dollars | but the judge rejected the.evidencej and a verdict…
1Opinion of the Court
P-er Curiam.
The evidence offered on the párt of the defendant ought to have been received, according to the principle which governed the case of Wiffin v. Roberts, (1 Esp. Cas. 261.,) and. which was adopted and sanctioned by this; court in Brown v. Mott, (7 Johns. Rep. 361.) This suit'is by the endorsee-against his immediate endorser. And in the case of Livingston v. Hastie & Patrick, (2 Caines’ Rep. 248.,) it is explicitly laid down, that the payee will be allowed, against the drawer, and the endorsee against his immediate endorser, to show what was the real consideration passing between…
2Cited by17 opinions
- McAdam v. Grand Forks Mercantile Co.North Dakota Supreme Court · 1913
- Campbell v. ReadTennessee Supreme Court · 1828
- Davis v. ClemsonU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Ohio · 1855
- Lowney v. PerhamSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1841
- Freeman v. BrittinSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1839
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.