Arnson v. Abrahamson

New York Court of Common Pleas

Arnson v. Abrahamson

9 N.Y.S. 514, 16 Daly 72, 30 N.Y. St. Rep. 657, 1890 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 241

CourtNew York Court of Common Pleas

DecidedApril 7, 1890

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 9 N.Y.S. 514 (Arnson v. Abrahamson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Common Pleas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Arnson v. Abrahamson, 9 N.Y.S. 514, 16 Daly 72, 30 N.Y. St. Rep. 657, 1890 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 241 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1890).

Pincite

Opinion

Larremore, C. J.

This ivas an action brought upon a promissory note against the defendant Gekowsky, the maker, and the defendants Max Abrahamson and Nathan Storm, two indorsers upon the note. It was insisted as a defense that the note was a forgery, upon which an issue was framed and tried, and a verdict rendered in favor of the defendant. The indorsers claimed 'that they were discharged from liability on account of said alleged forgery.

It is a well-settled legal principle that an indorser impliedly warrants that the instrument is not forged; and, if it is, he is liable upon this warranty. He cannot question the signature of the maker or previous indorser, or take advantage of the fact that the signature of the maker or previous indorser was forged. Turner v. Keller, 66 N. Y. 66; Herrick v. Whitney, 15 Johns. 240; Shaver v. Ehle, 16 Johns. 201; Morrison v. Currie, 4 Duer, 79. The acceptor of a bill is presumed to know the signature of the drawer; and, if the bill is accepted upon the faith of his indorsement, he is liable too bona fide indorsee or holder for value, even though the bill proves to be a forgery. National Park Bank v. Ninth Nat. Bank, 46 N. Y. 77; Bank of Commerce v. Union Bank, 3 N. Y. 230. See, also, Coggill v. Bank, 1 N. Y. 113. It has been decided that where a note is indorsed for the accommodation of the maker or payee, and is negotiated to a third person, who pays value for it, the party receiving it, and who pays value, is entitled to recover upon it against such indorser notwithstanding the purchaser took it with full knowledge that it was accommodation paper. Ross v. Bedell, 5 Duer, 462; Grant v. Ellicott, 7 Wend. 227; Commercial Bank v. Norton, 1 Hill, 501. This case comes within the rule of Fassin v. Hubbard, 55 N. Y. 465, as there was no limitation of the indorsers* liability upon the contract. The judgment appealed from should be reversed as to the defendants Max Abrahamson and Nathan Storm, and judgment should be ordered against them in favor of the plaintiff, with costs.

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

Larremore, C. J.

This ivas an action brought upon a promissory note against the defendant Gekowsky, the maker, and the defendants Max Abrahamson and Nathan Storm, two indorsers upon the note. It was insisted as a defense that the note was a forgery, upon which an issue was framed and tried, and a verdict rendered in favor of the defendant. The indorsers claimed 'that they were discharged from liability on account of said alleged forgery.

It is a well-settled legal principle that an indorser impliedly warrants that the instrument is not forged; and, if it is, he is liable upon this warranty. He cannot question the signature of the maker or previous indorser, or take advantage of the fact that the signature of the maker or previous indorser was forged. Turner v. Keller, 66 N. Y. 66; Herrick v. Whitney, 15 Johns. 240; Shaver v. Ehle, 16 Johns. 201; Morrison v. Currie, 4 Duer, 79. The acceptor of a bill is presumed to know the signature of the drawer; and, if the bill is accepted upon the faith of his indorsement, he is liable too bona fide indorsee or holder for value, even though the bill proves to be a forgery. National Park Bank v. Ninth Nat. Bank, 46 N. Y. 77; Bank of Commerce v. Union Bank, 3 N. Y. 230. See, also, Coggill v. Bank, 1 N. Y. 113. It has been decided that where a note is indorsed for the accommodation of the maker or payee, and is negotiated to a third person, who pays value for it, the party receiving it, and who pays value, is entitled to recover upon it against such indorser notwithstanding the purchaser took it with full knowledge that it was accommodation paper. Ross v. Bedell, 5 Duer, 462; Grant v. Ellicott, 7 Wend. 227; Commercial Bank v. Norton, 1 Hill, 501. This case comes within the rule of Fassin v. Hubbard, 55 N. Y. 465, as there was no limitation of the indorsers* liability upon the contract. The judgment appealed from should be reversed as to the defendants Max Abrahamson and Nathan Storm, and judgment should be ordered against them in favor of the plaintiff, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

9 N.Y.S. 514, 16 Daly 72, 30 N.Y. St. Rep. 657, 1890 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 241, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arnson-v-abrahamson-nyctcompl-1890.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack