Clark v. Titcomb
New York Supreme Court
mms is an action to recover the amount of two promissory -1 notes, made at Boston, in December, 1855, by the firm of J. & G. P. Titcomb, (of which firm the defendant is the survivor,) to the order of the Commercial Mutual Marine Insurance Company of Massachusetts. The notes were indorsed in blank by the insurance company, “ by George H. Folger, President.” It was proved this was the way the company usually indorsed its notes.
Read the full summary
mms is an action to recover the amount of two promissory -1 notes, made at Boston, in December, 1855, by the firm of J. & G. P. Titcomb, (of which firm the defendant is the survivor,) to the order of the Commercial Mutual Marine Insurance Company of Massachusetts. The notes were indorsed in blank by the insurance company, “ by George H. Folger, President.” It was proved this was the way the company usually indorsed its notes. In March, 1856, the company, being in need of funds “ to pay losses past due,” procured a loan of $32,000 from nine different persons and firms, of which firms the…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
Geo. G. Barnard, J.
The plaintiff holds this note as trustee of an express trust. The action was therefore properly brought in his name. (People v. Norton, 5 Seld. 178. Lewis v. Graham, 4 Abb. 108.)
The transfer of the note in question with others was authorized by the board of directors. The president merely acted as the instrument to make the indorsement. It being the usual custom of the company to transfer its notes by the mere indorsement of the president, such indorsement is all that is requisite to effect a transfer of the title, where the transfer itself is authorized by a…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Central Gold Mining Co. v. PlattNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1870
- Mangels v. SchoenCity of New York Municipal Court · 1885