Henry v. Bank of Salina
New York Court of Appeals
On error from the Supreme Court. The Bank of Salina sued Henry and Pierce in the Court below upon a promissory note signed by Pierce as principal, and Henry as surety, payable to the bank and not negotiable.
Read the full summary
On error from the Supreme Court. The Bank of Salina sued Henry and Pierce in the Court below upon a promissory note signed by Pierce as principal, and Henry as surety, payable to the bank and not negotiable. Henry pleaded the general issue and gave notice of the defence of usury, verifying the notice according to the usury act of 1837. On the trial at the Circuit in April, 1844, after the plaintiffs had rested, the defendant’s counsel opened the defence to the jury, and stated, among other things, that the note was made to he discounted at the plaintiffs’ hank, and was in the first instance…
1Opinion of the Court
[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] There is another ground, besides those mentioned by the Supreme Court, on which Chapman was privileged from answering the questions put to him. It was one branch of the defence that the witness, being the teller of the bank, discounted the note after it had, with his knowledge, been offered for discount to the directors, and been refused by them. If this fact could be established, Chapman would not only forfeit twice the amount of the loan which he made, (1 R.S.…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Livingston v. HarrisNew York Court of Chancery · 1831
3Cited by15 opinions
- Seller v. JenkinsIndiana Supreme Court · 1884
- Lamson v. BoydenIllinois Supreme Court · 1896
- Meyer v. Virginius St. Julian MayoAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1916
- Nekoosa-Edwards Paper Co. v. News Publishing Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1921
- In re DelehantyNew York Supreme Court · 1952
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.