McCluskey v. Falke
The Superior Court of New York City
This was an action upon a promissory note at three months, for the sum of $249.97, made by the defendant and dated March 26, 1860. The defendant, in his answer and upon the trial, denied his indebtedness to the plaintiff upon the note, and averred that the plaintiff was not the lawful owner and holder thereof; and that after the note in question was given it was torn in two parts and thrown upon the floor and a four months’ note for the same amount substituted therefor, with…
Read the full summary
This was an action upon a promissory note at three months, for the sum of $249.97, made by the defendant and dated March 26, 1860. The defendant, in his answer and upon the trial, denied his indebtedness to the plaintiff upon the note, and averred that the plaintiff was not the lawful owner and holder thereof; and that after the note in question was given it was torn in two parts and thrown upon the floor and a four months’ note for the same amount substituted therefor, with an indorser ; that the intention of the parties was to destroy the note in question, and that the four months’ note was…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
G-aevin, J.
The important question in this case was whether the note in question was a valid and subsisting evidence of indebtedness against the defendant, or whether it had been canceled and the four months’ note substituted for it. If this was so, the plaintiff could not recover. But the plaintiff denied this, and insisted and gave evidence to prove, that after the four months’ note was given, and on the same day, the note in suit was signed by the defendant instead of one for two months, and that it was the two months’ note which was destroyed. Thus the case was presented. It…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Morgan's Louisiana & T. R. & S. S Co. v. StewartSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1907
- State ex rel. Young v. SandersSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1903