Lysaght v. Phillips
The Superior Court of New York City
Motion for a new trial, upon a report of a referee, and an appeal from a judgment entered thereon, on the ground of its being contrary to evidence, and for error in matters of law, as to which exceptions were taken to the decision. The action was by the plaintiff, as holder and endorser of an accepted bill of exchange, against the drawer, upon protest of the same for non-payment, and notice to Mm.
Read the full summary
Motion for a new trial, upon a report of a referee, and an appeal from a judgment entered thereon, on the ground of its being contrary to evidence, and for error in matters of law, as to which exceptions were taken to the decision. The action was by the plaintiff, as holder and endorser of an accepted bill of exchange, against the drawer, upon protest of the same for non-payment, and notice to Mm. The bill was dated 30th August, 1847, at sixty-days’ sight, drawn by Jonas Phillips & Co., of New York, on Lawrence Phillips & Sons, of London, for £1,304 17s. 5d, to the order of the drawers, and…
1Opinion of the CourtBy the Court. Slossoh, J.
The two material questions in this case, are:
1 Whether the plaintiff is a Iona fide holder, for value, of the bill in question.
2 Whether, if he be such a holder for value, he has not, by executing the inspection deed of April 7th, 1848, released the defendant from his liability as drawer of the bill.
First. The referee has found that the bill was drawn by the defendant, for the accommodation of Lawrence Phillips & Sons, (the acceptors) without any consideration having passed from the latter to the former. The evidence shows that Lawrence Phillips & Sons, delivered the bill to Sargeant, Cordon…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Stewart v. EdenNew York Supreme Court · 1804
- Lathrop v. MorrisThe Superior Court of New York City · 1851
3Cited by3 opinions
- Hulke v. International Manufacturing Co.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1957
- Parmelee v. LawrenceIllinois Supreme Court · 1867
- Whittemore v. Judd Linseed & Sperm Oil Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1891