Legal Opinion

Rosa v. Brotherson

New York Supreme Court

Decided January 15, 1833PublishedCited by 31 opinions

This was an action of assumpsit, tried at the Schenectady circuit in February, 1831, before the Hon. James Vanderfoee, one of the circuit judges. The action was against the maker of a promissory note, transferred by the payee to the plaintiff before maturity, in payment of a precedent debt. On the trial, the defendant set up a defence, as against the payee. The plaintiff received the note in good faith, and without notice of any existing defence.

Read the full summary

This was an action of assumpsit, tried at the Schenectady circuit in February, 1831, before the Hon. James Vanderfoee, one of the circuit judges. The action was against the maker of a promissory note, transferred by the payee to the plaintiff before maturity, in payment of a precedent debt. On the trial, the defendant set up a defence, as against the payee. The plaintiff received the note in good faith, and without notice of any existing defence. The judge charged the jury that it was immaterial whether the note was negotiated in payment of a precedent debt or for a valuable consideration…

1Opinion of the Court

By the Court,

Savage, Ch. J.

The judge charged the jury that it was immaterial whether the note was negotiated in payment of a precedent debt, or for a valuable consideration paid at the time. This is certainly not the law as settled by the court for the correction of errors in the case of Coddington v. Bay, 20 Johns. R. 637. Mr. Justice Woodworth states the rule to be this i that where negotiable paper is tranferred for a valuable consideration and without notice of any fraud, the right of the holder shall prevail against the true owner; but that valuable consideration which shall produce this…

2Cited by31 opinions

  1. Ph&338nix Insurance Company v. . ChurchNew York Court of Appeals · 1880
  2. Brush v. ScribnerSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1836
  3. Bond v. MarkstrumMichigan Supreme Court · 1894
  4. Caperton v. SchmidtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1864
  5. Cardwell v. HicksNew York Supreme Court · 1862

26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API