Legal Opinion

Bowery National Bank v. Sniffen

New York Supreme Court

Decided November 7, 1889PublishedCited by 6 opinions

Motion for new trial on exceptions.

1Opinion of the CourtVan Brunt, P. J.

The complaint alleges that the defendant, Catherine Sniffen, made her certain promissory notes in 1887 and 1888 in writing, and copies of such notes are set forth therein. Each of said notes was in the same form, but they varied in amount. The form was as follows:

“Four months after date I promise to pay to the order of John Sniffen $2,500, at the Bowery national Bank, value received.
“Catherine Sniffen.”

The plaintiff alleged that the defendant delivered the said notes to the payee, who thereafter, and before maturity, indorsed the said notes, and for value delivered the same to the plaintiff.…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Tiemeyer v. . TurnquistNew York Court of Appeals · 1881
  2. Second National Bank of Watkins v. . MillerNew York Court of Appeals · 1875
  3. The Saratoga County Bank v. . PruynNew York Court of Appeals · 1882

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Colonial & United States Mortgage Co. v. BradleySouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1893
  2. Queens Co. Bank v. LeavittNew York Supreme Court · 1890
  3. Schnitzer v. HustedCity of New York Municipal Court · 1832
  4. Harlem River Bank v. MeyerNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1892
  5. Schnitzer v. HustedCity of New York Municipal Court · 1892

1 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