Porter v. . Potter
New York Court of Appeals
Appeal from the Supreme Court. Action on a promissory note by an indorsee against the makers. 'The note was payable to the order of N. P. Rust, who had indorsed it in blank. It had been discounted by the Bank of Salina. One Quick paid the amount to the bank, and received themote before maturity, and afterwards transferred it in writing to the plaintiffs in payment of a debt.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Supreme Court. Action on a promissory note by an indorsee against the makers. 'The note was payable to the order of N. P. Rust, who had indorsed it in blank. It had been discounted by the Bank of Salina. One Quick paid the amount to the bank, and received themote before maturity, and afterwards transferred it in writing to the plaintiffs in payment of a debt. The defence of N. J. Potter, one of the makers, and the respondent in this appeal, was, that his name was signed by another person without his authority. The plaintiff called Quick, who testified to conversations with…
1Opinion of the CourtDenio, J.
This case will not be important as a precedent, for since it was tried the law has been changed so as to,permit parties to be sworn in their own favor. Still, if an error was committed we are bound to reverse the judg ment, though on a future trial Potter will be a competent witness by force of the statute. We cannot say but that the plaintiffs may be prepared with other testimony, which they left behind on the former occasion, from their reliance on Quick, and their belief that Potter could not lawfully be heard to contradict him.
The question, then, is whether Quick was an assignor of the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Calkins v. PackerNew York Supreme Court · 1855
3Cited by4 opinions
- In Re the Commissioners of the Palisades Interstate ParkNew York Court of Appeals · 1915
- Bartlett v. TarboxNew York Court of Appeals · 1864
- Gardner v. GordonThe Superior Court of New York City · 1858
- Richardson v. WarnerNew York Supreme Court · 1878