Herrick v. Carman
New York Supreme Court
IN ERROR, from the court of common pleas of jDutchess county. Carman sued Herrick in the court below, on a promissory note, dated 25th February, 1811, made by John Ryan, paya]ye to Lawrence Carman Sr Co. or order, for 138 dollars and 75 cents, payable 30 days alter date. The note was endorsed to Herrick, who endorsed the same to Carman, the plaintiff below, Nt the trial, the making the note, the endorsement, demand of payment, Sec. were proved.
Read the full summary
IN ERROR, from the court of common pleas of jDutchess county. Carman sued Herrick in the court below, on a promissory note, dated 25th February, 1811, made by John Ryan, paya]ye to Lawrence Carman Sr Co. or order, for 138 dollars and 75 cents, payable 30 days alter date. The note was endorsed to Herrick, who endorsed the same to Carman, the plaintiff below, Nt the trial, the making the note, the endorsement, demand of payment, Sec. were proved. The defendant admitted that Ryan gave the note for a just debt; but offered to prove that the note had been negotiated to the plaintiff, and that no…
1Per curiam
The evidence was legal, and ought to have been received. The suit was between the endorser and his immediate endorsee, and they are, in one sense, original parties, between whom the consideration of the contract may be inquired into. The evidence was to show that the plaintiff below gave no consideration, and was the mere agent of the payees. If that were so, they had no right of recourse to their endorsee; but how his name came on the note, if the payees had never negotiated it, is not explained. In the case of Barber v. Prentiss, (6 Tyng’s Mass. T. R. 430.) which was an action by the…
2Cited by16 opinions
- Moore v. . CrossNew York Court of Appeals · 1859
- Phelps v. . VischerNew York Court of Appeals · 1872
- Ellis v. BrownNew York Supreme Court · 1849
- Hill v. ElySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1819
- Moore v. CrossNew York Supreme Court · 1857
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.