Roosa v. Crist
Illinois Supreme Court
This was an action in debt, on a promissory note, dated 3rd January, 1844, Bethel, in the State of New York, for ninety dollars, payable to John Barlow or bearer.
Read the full summary
This was an action in debt, on a promissory note, dated 3rd January, 1844, Bethel, in the State of New York, for ninety dollars, payable to John Barlow or bearer. Declaration alleges that said Barlow, before the note became due, transferred and delivered the same to plaintiff, and that such transfer and delivery took place within the State of New York; and avers that, by the laws of New York, in force at the time, notes of this description were transferable by delivery, and recites particularly the statutes on that subject; and avers what was the custom of merchants to which those statutes…
1Opinion of the Court
Catón, J.
We have again considered attentively our statute concerning the transfer of promissory notes, &c., and adhere to the decision of this court made in the case of Hilborn v. Artis, 3 Scam. 344. The words of the statute are: “ Any such note, bond, bill or other instrument in writing, made payable to any person or persons, shall be assignable by indorsement thereon under the hand or hands of any such persons, and by his, her, or their assignees, in the same manner as bills of exchange are, so as absolutely to transfer and vest the property thereof in each and every assignee or assignees…
2Cited by13 opinions
- Forsyth v. BarnesIllinois Supreme Court · 1907
- Cowan v. HallackSupreme Court of Colorado · 1886
- Gilmore v. German Savings BankAppellate Court of Illinois · 1900
- Hakes v. National State BankIllinois Supreme Court · 1896
- Bettis v. BristolSupreme Court of Iowa · 1881
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.