Beale v. Parish
This text of 24 Barb. 243 (Beale v. Parish) 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.
Opinions
The bank having discounted the note became the holder of it; and the bank as such holder having used due diligence to ascertain the residence of the indorser, and having sent notice of “protest to the place designated (although erroneously) as the residence of the indorser, was entitled as such holder to recover against the indorser. The plaintiffs, who paid the bank, (there being no pretense of intentional misrepresentation on their part,) stand in the shoes of the bank, and are subrogated to their rights.
The judgment of the special term, (Morris, J.,) in favor of the plaintiffs, should be affirmed with costs.
Davies, J. concurred.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
24 Barb. 243, 1857 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 28, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/beale-v-parish-nysupct-1857.