Alder v. Bloomingdale
The Superior Court of New York City
The action was against the defendant Schmidt as the maker, and Bloomingdale as the endorser, of a promissory note for $150. The complaint set forth a copy of the note, and averred that it was duly endorsed to the plaintiff before it became due, but contained no averment that it had been duly presented for payment to the maker, and that due notice of its dishonor by him had been given. To this complaint, Bloomingdale, the endorser, demurred.
1Opinion of the CourtDuer, J.
As it seemed to me that the demurrer raised a new and important question of pleading under the Code, I have consulted my brethren, and they concur in the opinion that I now give.
The case turns entirely upon the construction to be given to a clause, which appears for the first time in the amended Code of 1851. Hence, the two cases of Spelman v. Wader, and Gay v. Paine (5 How. P. Rep. 6 id., p. 107), which were cited on the hearing, have no application, since they were both decided before the clause in question was enacted. In the revision of 1851, it was added to § 162, which provides, that…
2Cited by11 opinions
- Hankinson v. PageU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · 1887
- M. Gilston, Inc. v. UllmanNassau County District Court · 1965
- Marshall v. RockwoodNew York Supreme Court · 1855
- Andrews v. Astor BankThe Superior Court of New York City · 1853
- Price v. McClaveThe Superior Court of New York City · 1857
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.