Cunningham v. Hudson River Bank
New York Supreme Court
Error from the superior court of the city of New York. The action below was brought by the bank against Cun-■ñingham to recover the amount of a check for $146, which ■it was alleged had been drawn by him on the Greenwich Bank, N. Y., and negotiated to the plaintiffs, and which had been lost. 2 R. S. 406, § 75 , 76. Coffin, the plaintiffs’ cashier, testified that on or about the 20th June, 1835, the plaintiffs paid a check purporting to be drawn by S. A, Cunningham, for $146,…
Read the full summary
Error from the superior court of the city of New York. The action below was brought by the bank against Cun-■ñingham to recover the amount of a check for $146, which ■it was alleged had been drawn by him on the Greenwich Bank, N. Y., and negotiated to the plaintiffs, and which had been lost. 2 R. S. 406, § 75 , 76. Coffin, the plaintiffs’ cashier, testified that on or about the 20th June, 1835, the plaintiffs paid a check purporting to be drawn by S. A, Cunningham, for $146, on the Greenwich Bank, in New York; that he enclosed the check in a letter to G. A.. Worth, cashier of the City Bank in…
1Opinion of the Court
By the court,
Bronson, J.
A witness must, in some Way, have acquired a-knowledge of the general character of the party’s hand-writing, before he can be qualified to testify on thát subject. If he has not seen the party write, he must have seen genuine specimens of his hand-writing; and •the .fact that they were genuine, must be proved. It is not *559enough that they purport to come from the person whose hand-writing is in question. The cases of Titford v. Knott, 2 Johns. Cas. 211, Johnson v. Daverne, 19 Johns. R. 134, and Harrington v. Fry, Ryan & M. 90, to which the counsel for the plaintiffs…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Titford v. KnottNew York Supreme Court · 1801
3Cited by11 opinions
- People v. . Dunbar Contracting Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1915
- Bennett v. MeehanIndiana Supreme Court · 1882
- Hammond v. . VarianNew York Court of Appeals · 1873
- Culver v. HaslamNew York Supreme Court · 1849
- People v. Dunbar Contracting Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1914
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.