American Exchange Bank v. Corliss

New York Supreme Court

American Exchange Bank v. Corliss

46 Barb. 19

DecidedApril 2, 1866

StatusPublished

This text of 46 Barb. 19 (American Exchange Bank v. Corliss) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

American Exchange Bank v. Corliss, 46 Barb. 19 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1866).

Pincite

Opinion

By the Court, Geo. G. Barhard, J.

As between Slash? field, Clark <fe Co. and the defendant, the note in question would have sustained no action. It was lent by the defend? ant without any consideration, and for the purpose pf being discounted for the benefit of that firm, and under the agree? ment that it should he paid by them. It was transferred as collateral security to the plaintiff for a loan of $1000, which loan was paid. The note remained in the possession of the [21]*21plaintiffs, after the loan was paid, until Blashfield, Clark & Co. failed in business. At the time of their failure they had overdrawn their account with the plaintiffs’ bank about §6000, and on the day of their failure they gave the bank a notice in writing requesting that all notes they had deposited for collection or as collateral security might be held by the bank as collateral security for notes of the firm discounted or to be discounted, ifo new note was in fact discounted, that date, for Blashfield, Clark & Co.

[New York General Term, April 2, 1866.

As a general rule, no one can transfer a better title to personal property than he has in it. As to promissory notes not yet due, there is an exception. A holder of such a note, when he has paid a present valuable consideration gets a good title, although the persons from whom he took it had none. Payment of, or security for, an antecedent debt is not such a consideration. (McBride v. The Farmers’ Bank, 26 N. Y. Rep. 450.)

The plaintiffs parted with nothing, gave no credit, relinquished no security, and assumed no responsibility on the faith of this note, and were not bona fide holders thereof. (Coddington v. Bay, 20 John. 637. McBride v. The Farmers’ Bank, 26 N. Y. Rep. 450.)

The judgment should be reversed, and a new trial granted, with costs to abide the event.

Geo. G. Barnard, Ingraham and Sutherland, Justices.]

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

By the Court, Geo. G. Barhard, J.

As between Slash? field, Clark <fe Co. and the defendant, the note in question would have sustained no action. It was lent by the defend? ant without any consideration, and for the purpose pf being discounted for the benefit of that firm, and under the agree? ment that it should he paid by them. It was transferred as collateral security to the plaintiff for a loan of $1000, which loan was paid. The note remained in the possession of the [21]*21plaintiffs, after the loan was paid, until Blashfield, Clark & Co. failed in business. At the time of their failure they had overdrawn their account with the plaintiffs’ bank about §6000, and on the day of their failure they gave the bank a notice in writing requesting that all notes they had deposited for collection or as collateral security might be held by the bank as collateral security for notes of the firm discounted or to be discounted, ifo new note was in fact discounted, that date, for Blashfield, Clark & Co.

[New York General Term, April 2, 1866.

As a general rule, no one can transfer a better title to personal property than he has in it. As to promissory notes not yet due, there is an exception. A holder of such a note, when he has paid a present valuable consideration gets a good title, although the persons from whom he took it had none. Payment of, or security for, an antecedent debt is not such a consideration. (McBride v. The Farmers’ Bank, 26 N. Y. Rep. 450.)

The plaintiffs parted with nothing, gave no credit, relinquished no security, and assumed no responsibility on the faith of this note, and were not bona fide holders thereof. (Coddington v. Bay, 20 John. 637. McBride v. The Farmers’ Bank, 26 N. Y. Rep. 450.)

The judgment should be reversed, and a new trial granted, with costs to abide the event.

Geo. G. Barnard, Ingraham and Sutherland, Justices.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

46 Barb. 19, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/american-exchange-bank-v-corliss-nysupct-1866.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack