Lovell v. Evertson
New York Supreme Court
IN EE.E.OK, from the court of common picas of Oranq-e , _ ,, , ,, _ . , county. Lovell Drought an action 01 assumpsit m the court í,elow aSainst Evertson, as the endorser of a promissory note, dated 28th November, 1810, made by Robert Barnes, for SI do Ilars and 21 cents, payable to the defendant or order, ninety days after date. The defendant pleaded non assumpsit.
Read the full summary
IN EE.E.OK, from the court of common picas of Oranq-e , _ ,, , ,, _ . , county. Lovell Drought an action 01 assumpsit m the court í,elow aSainst Evertson, as the endorser of a promissory note, dated 28th November, 1810, made by Robert Barnes, for SI do Ilars and 21 cents, payable to the defendant or order, ninety days after date. The defendant pleaded non assumpsit. At the trial the note *■ - was produced with the name of the defendant endorsed, and , ni1 - , , , was then filled up "with tnese words; “ pay the contents to 'Lhomas Lovell.” The note in question, with several others, had been…
1Per curiam
The court below erred in nonsuiting the plaintiff, for the note being endorsed in blank, the owner had a right to fill it up with what name he pleased, and the person whose name was so inserted, would be deemed, on record, as the legal owner, and if not so in fact, he could sue as trustee for the persons having the real interest. But the defendant could have no concern with that question. He was responsible to the person whose name was so inserted in the blank endorsement. This is a plain and settled rule, and a decision to this effect was made in the court of errors in 1800, in the case of…
2Cited by18 opinions
- Roberts v. SnowNebraska Supreme Court · 1889
- Rock County National Bank v. HollisterSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1875
- Field v. ThorntonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1846
- Brown v. McHughMichigan Supreme Court · 1876
- Countryman v. LighthillNew York Supreme Court · 1881
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.