Anchor Brewing Co. v. McDonald

New York Supreme Court

Anchor Brewing Co. v. McDonald

17 N.Y.S. 661, 44 N.Y. St. Rep. 274, 63 Hun 627, 1892 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 441

DecidedFebruary 8, 1892

StatusPublished

This text of 17 N.Y.S. 661 (Anchor Brewing Co. v. McDonald) 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

Anchor Brewing Co. v. McDonald, 17 N.Y.S. 661, 44 N.Y. St. Rep. 274, 63 Hun 627, 1892 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 441 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1892).

Pincite

Opinion

Pratt, J.

The notarial protest is only evidence of the facts therein stated. It does not state that any notice was sent to the indorser, McDonald. The only proof made upon the trial of any notice to the indorser was the testimony of a witness that he sent her a letter two or three days after the note was due. The contents of the letter are not shown. Ho proof being given of sufficient notice, the nonsuit was properly granted. Judgment affirmed, with costs.

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

Pratt, J.

The notarial protest is only evidence of the facts therein stated. It does not state that any notice was sent to the indorser, McDonald. The only proof made upon the trial of any notice to the indorser was the testimony of a witness that he sent her a letter two or three days after the note was due. The contents of the letter are not shown. Ho proof being given of sufficient notice, the nonsuit was properly granted. Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 N.Y.S. 661, 44 N.Y. St. Rep. 274, 63 Hun 627, 1892 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 441, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anchor-brewing-co-v-mcdonald-nysupct-1892.