Schermerhorn v. Burgess
New York Supreme Court
APPEAL from a judgment entered upon the report of a referee. The action was against the makers and indorsers of a promissory note for $3000, made by Charles Burgess and C. P. Burgess, and indorsed by W. J. Moses and E. Sheldon. The makers appeared and put in answers, setting up a defense in no way connected with the question of stamps upon the note, and on the trial abandoned the defense which they had set up in their answer.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from a judgment entered upon the report of a referee. The action was against the makers and indorsers of a promissory note for $3000, made by Charles Burgess and C. P. Burgess, and indorsed by W. J. Moses and E. Sheldon. The makers appeared and put in answers, setting up a defense in no way connected with the question of stamps upon the note, and on the trial abandoned the defense which they had set up in their answer. The indorsers answered separately, claiming that the note had been altered in its date, since it was indorsed, whereby they were discharged. On the production of the…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court, Johnson, J.
There is no merit in this appeal. The referee has found as a fact that the revenue stamp was not omitted or left off the note in question at the time it was made and delivered, with any intent to evade the provisions of the act of congress on that subject. It was not therefore invalid in its inception, by the very terms of the act of congress. ■ (Sess. Laws of 39th Congress, 148, Sehed. A, amending § 158 of act of June 13, 1864.) The same provision was also contained in the act of 1864. (Beebe v. Hutton, 47 Barb. 187. Vorebeck v. Roe, 50 id. 302.) I confess I do not…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Myers v. SmithNew York Supreme Court · 1867
- Beebe v. HuttonNew York Supreme Court · 1866
3Cited by1 opinion
- Baker v. BakerNew York Supreme Court · 1872