Corbitt v. Miller
New York Supreme Court
THIS was an action upon a promissory note. The complaint alleges the making of the note by the defendant, payable to the order of David O’Hearn, and its indorsement for value received to the plaintiff. These allegations are not denied in the answer.
Read the full summary
THIS was an action upon a promissory note. The complaint alleges the making of the note by the defendant, payable to the order of David O’Hearn, and its indorsement for value received to the plaintiff. These allegations are not denied in the answer. But the dpfense alleged is, that the note was an accommodation note, made and delivered to O’Hearn to enable him to raise money to pay a mortgage owing by him to the plaintiff; that the said O’Hearn did not raise money upon it, but transferred it to the plaintiff after due. ■ The cause was tried by the court without a jury. On the trial, the…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
Johnson, J.
The facts stated in the answer, that the note in question was made by the defendant without consideration, and delivered to O’Hearn, the payee, solely for his accommodation, and that it was transferred by O’Hearn to the plaintiff after it became due, must be taken to be admitted. But these facts alone constitute ho defense; This seems to be well settled. (2 Parsons on Notes &c. 29. Charles v. Marsden, 1 Taunt. 224. Caruthers v. West, 11 *309Adol. & Ellis, 143. Sturtevant v. Ford, 4 Man. & G. 101. Thompson v. Shepherd, 12 Metc. 311.) In Charles v. Marsden, (supra,)…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Brown v. MottNew York Supreme Court · 1811
3Cited by3 opinions
- McCramer v. ThompsonSupreme Court of Iowa · 1866
- Schepp v. CarpenterNew York Supreme Court · 1867
- Treadwell v. LincolnNew York Supreme Court · 1889