Canajoharie National Bank v. Diefendorf
New York Court of Appeals
Appeal from order of the General Term of the. Supreme Court in the third judicial department made March 16, 1889, which reversed a judgment in favor of defendant entered upon a verdict and reversed an order denying a motion for a new trial and granted a new trial. This action was brought upon two promissory notes executed by defendant. The facts, so far as material, are stated in'the opinion.
Read the full summary
Appeal from order of the General Term of the. Supreme Court in the third judicial department made March 16, 1889, which reversed a judgment in favor of defendant entered upon a verdict and reversed an order denying a motion for a new trial and granted a new trial. This action was brought upon two promissory notes executed by defendant. The facts, so far as material, are stated in'the opinion. The notes in question are absolutely void under chapter 65, Laws of 1877, in not having the words “ given for a patent right ” written or printed upon the face thereof, above the signature, as thereby…
1Opinion of the Court
Ruger, Ch. J.
The evidence tended to prove that Henderson and Yan Yalkenbnrgh procured from the defendant at Rochester on December 1, 1886, eight promissory notes of $1,000 each, payable by him to Henderson or bearer, at various times from three to twelve months from date, by fraud and misrepresentation, and under an agreement that they should be retained in the possession of the payee to be paid from the receipts of a business to be carried on as partners by the said parties, and under such circumstances as would not have authorized their payee to enforce them against the maker. Two of these…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Elwood v. . the Western Union Telegraph Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1871
- Murray v. LardnerSupreme Court of the United States · 1865
- Kavanagh v. . WilsonNew York Court of Appeals · 1877
- Vosburgh v. . DiefendorfNew York Court of Appeals · 1890
- Vallett v. ParkerNew York Supreme Court · 1831
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by178 opinions
- Sonnentheil v. Christian Moerlein Brewing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1899
- McNight v. ParsonsSupreme Court of Iowa · 1907
- McCandless v. FurlaudSupreme Court of the United States · 1935
- Cheever v. Pittsburgh, Shenango & Lake Erie RailroadNew York Court of Appeals · 1896
- Arnd v. AylesworthSupreme Court of Iowa · 1909
173 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.