Dowe v. Schutt
New York Supreme Court
Assumpsit on a promissory note, tried at the Tompkins circuit in August, 1844, before Monell, late C. Judge. The note declared on was made by the defendants, dated April 16,1841, for $253, 84, and was payable to the plaintiff or bearear in six months from date, with interest. The defence was usury.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit on a promissory note, tried at the Tompkins circuit in August, 1844, before Monell, late C. Judge. The note declared on was made by the defendants, dated April 16,1841, for $253, 84, and was payable to the plaintiff or bearear in six months from date, with interest. The defence was usury. In January, 1840, the defendants gave their note to one Southard or bearer for §250, payable in one year, with interest, which he transferred, to the plaintiff with his guaranty endorsed on.it, at a large discount beyonti the legal rate of interest. It was not paid up when it fell due, but the note…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court, Beardsley, J.
There was no error in the charge of the judge. If the first note had been given in consideration of a sale and transfer, or an agreement to sell and transfer, to the defendants, debts then due to Southard, it would have been business and not accommodation paper in his hands. It would have been but the common, case of a note given on the purchase of property by the makers, and which, as between them and the seller, they would be bound to pay. Where cross notes are made, and specifically exchanged, by the makers, each note is the proper debt of the maker thereof, and…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Holmes v. WilliamsNew York Court of Chancery · 1843
3Cited by57 opinions
- Lomer v. . MeekerNew York Court of Appeals · 1862
- Davis v. . McCreadyNew York Court of Appeals · 1858
- The Dry Dock Bank v. . the American Life Ins. and Trust Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1850
- Eastman v. . ShawNew York Court of Appeals · 1875
- Hall v. WilsonNew York Supreme Court · 1853
52 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.