Brown v. . Montgomery
New York Court of Appeals
Appeal from the Superior Court of Buffalo. The plaintiffs sued to recover the. amount of a note for $297, made April 11, 1856, by the defendants, payable presently. The defence was fraud in the consideration of the note.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Superior Court of Buffalo. The plaintiffs sued to recover the. amount of a note for $297, made April 11, 1856, by the defendants, payable presently. The defence was fraud in the consideration of the note. On the trial, before a jury, the following facts appeared in evidence: At the date of the note, the plaintiffs were the holders of a check drawn by Farnham, Smedley & Kendall, on the Bank of Attica, payable to the order of and indorsed by L. B. Farnham, one of that firm, for $300, post-dated as of April 16, 1856. On that day (April 11), the plaintiffs employed one Cutting, a…
1Opinion of the CourtDenio, J.
I think there was no error in the charge to the jury in the Superior Court. The law unquestionably is, as it was assumed on the argument, that notice to the plaintiffs’ agent, Cutting, while he was actually engaged in attempting to sell the check, of the failure of the drawers, was equivalent, so far as the present action is concerned, to notice to the plaintiffs themselves.
What Chard informed him, was not precisely that Farnham & Co. had failed, but that their check on the bank at which they kept their account was that day protested for non-payment. This, prima facie, was notice that they…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Nichols v. . PinnerNew York Court of Appeals · 1858
3Cited by32 opinions
- St. Louis & San Francisco Railway Co. v. JohnstonSupreme Court of the United States · 1890
- Booth v. . PowersNew York Court of Appeals · 1874
- Dale v. JenningsSupreme Court of Florida · 1925
- Rothmiller v. . SteinNew York Court of Appeals · 1894
- Raynor v. Scandinavian-American BankWashington Supreme Court · 1922
27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.