K. & K. Silk Trimming Co. v. Garfield National Bank

I concur for affirmance at least on the ground that defendant’s counterclaim should have been submitted to the jury. Assuming that the defendant bank, contrary to plaintiff’s instructions, had “ paid ” one of plaintiff’s notes, the transaction resulted either in a purchase by the bank from the holder of the note (Riverside Bank v. First National Bank, 74 Fed. 276) or the bank became subrogated to the rights of the former holder against the plaintiff as evidenced by the note. (Pittsburgh-Westmoreland Coal Co. v. Kerr, 220 N. Y. 137.)

As I read it, there is nothing in American Defense Society v.…