Russel v. Ball
New York Supreme Court
This was an action of assumpsit, brought by the plaintiff as indorsee, of a promissory note, against the makersr The cause was tried before Mr. Justice Tompkins, at the Columbia circuit, in July, 1806. On the trial, the making of the note was proved. The note was dated the 16th oí September, 1796, and payable the 3d of October, 1798, to Booth, or,order.
Read the full summary
This was an action of assumpsit, brought by the plaintiff as indorsee, of a promissory note, against the makersr The cause was tried before Mr. Justice Tompkins, at the Columbia circuit, in July, 1806. On the trial, the making of the note was proved. The note was dated the 16th oí September, 1796, and payable the 3d of October, 1798, to Booth, or,order. When the note became due, payment was demanded in the name of one Schamp, who was then the holder of the note, and the defendants then admitted the noté to be justly due, and promised to pay the money, but said they were not then able to do…
1Opinion of the CourtLivingston, J.
Though there be cases in which, after the negotiation of a promissory note, a maker will be let into proof of its having been fraudulently obtained, none have gone so far as to admit of this defence, where .the passing was prior to its becoming due, unless the noté, being payable to bearer, is transferred by delivery only, and that too under suspicious circumstances. If made payable to order, it is, perhaps, never necessary for the indorsee to prove that he gave value for it; nor has the maker been permitted to go into its real consideration, unless it be such as to render it void by statute,…
2Cited by23 opinions
- In Re the Accounting of Van AlstyneNew York Court of Appeals · 1913
- Craig v. CraigNew York Court of Chancery · 1848
- Mott v. HicksNew York Supreme Court · 1823
- Thayer v. ThayerSupreme Court of Vermont · 1842
- Millett v. TempleMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1932
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.