Miller v. . Cook
New York Court of Appeals
On the 26th of February, 1857, Markel and Schott made their promissory, note, dated that day, for one hundred and seventy-five dollars; payable to one Stephen M. Cook, or bearer, three months from date, with interest.
Read the full summary
On the 26th of February, 1857, Markel and Schott made their promissory, note, dated that day, for one hundred and seventy-five dollars; payable to one Stephen M. Cook, or bearer, three months from date, with interest. On the 16th day of March, 1857, the defendant, then being the bearer and owner of this note, transferred it to the plaintiff for value, and at the same time indorsed on the back of the note his guaranty in the words and figures following, viz.: “ For value received, I hereby guaranty the payment of the within note. Silas A. Cook. Waterloo, March 16th, 1857.” When the note became…
1Opinion of the Court
Davies, Justice.
This action is founded on a guaranty of a promissory note, made by William R Martel and Philip S. Schott, payable to one Stephen M. Cook, or bearer. Before this note became due, the defendant being the holder thereof, transferred the same to the plaintiff, and guarantied the payment thereof in these words : “ For value received, I hereby guaranty the payment of the within note. Waterloo, March 16th, 1857. Silas A. Cook.” This being an engagement to answer for the debt or default of a third person, the question raised is, whether the agreement is a compliance with the…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Douglass v. HowlandNew York Supreme Court · 1840
- D. & N. Arnold v. TallmadgeNew York Supreme Court · 1838
3Cited by13 opinions
- Drake v. . SeamanNew York Court of Appeals · 1884
- Johnston v. WadsworthOregon Supreme Court · 1893
- Bolling v. MunchusSupreme Court of Alabama · 1880
- Seymour v. . WarrenNew York Court of Appeals · 1904
- Connecticut Mutual Life Insurance v. Cleveland, Columbus & Cincinnati Rail RoadNew York Supreme Court · 1863
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.