Fonseca v. Hartman
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York
Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Seventh District. Action by Joshua Fonseca and another against Clarence Hartman. From" a judgment for plaintiffs, defendant appeals. Reversed.
1Opinion of the CourtGildersleeve, J.
The defendant is sued as indorser of a promissory note. Judgment was given for plaintiffs. Defendant bases his appeal on the ground that he never received notice of protest. The notice of protest was sent by mail to “Clarence Hartman, New York City, New York.” There is no evidence that he lived in New York. His address was not added to his signature on the note. To hold the indorser, notice of protest must be sent to such indorser. Laws 1897, p. 739, c. 612, § 160. The statute above cited, in section 179, provides that:
“Where a party has addéd an address to his signature, notice of dishonor…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- University Press, John Wilson & Son, Inc. v. WilliamsAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1900
- Bacon v. . HannaNew York Court of Appeals · 1893
- Philip & William Ebling Brewing Co. v. ReinheimerNew York Supreme Court · 1900
- J. H. Mohlman Co. v. McKaneAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1901
- J. H. Mohlman Co. v. McKaneAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1901
3Cited by2 opinions
- Kahnweiler v. SalomonCity of New York Municipal Court · 1919
- McGrath v. FrancoliniCity of New York Municipal Court · 1915