Bradley & Currier Co. v. Meyer

City of New York Municipal Court

Bradley & Currier Co. v. Meyer

16 N.Y.S. 88, 40 N.Y. St. Rep. 692, 1891 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 327

CourtCity of New York Municipal Court

DecidedOctober 15, 1891

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 16 N.Y.S. 88 (Bradley & Currier Co. v. Meyer) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering City of New York Municipal Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bradley & Currier Co. v. Meyer, 16 N.Y.S. 88, 40 N.Y. St. Rep. 692, 1891 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 327 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1891).

Pincite

Opinion

Ehrlich, C. J.

The defense by the indorsers was that they indorsed the notes to accommodate the maker, to enable him to procure the cancellation of a judgment held by the plaintiffs against the maker, and that it was wrongfully given to them by the maker without procuring such cancellation. The defendants (the indorsers) undertook to prove what was said by the maker to the indorsers to procure their indorsement, and the testimony was in several instances ruled out. They also undertook to prove that the maker owned property at the time on which the judgment was a lien, and this was ruled [89]*89out. We think this was error. It was proved, and not disputed, that the judgment was not canceled, so that the condition as to cancellation was material. For these reasons, and without considering the other exceptions in the case, we think the judgment must be reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellants to abide the event.

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

Ehrlich, C. J.

The defense by the indorsers was that they indorsed the notes to accommodate the maker, to enable him to procure the cancellation of a judgment held by the plaintiffs against the maker, and that it was wrongfully given to them by the maker without procuring such cancellation. The defendants (the indorsers) undertook to prove what was said by the maker to the indorsers to procure their indorsement, and the testimony was in several instances ruled out. They also undertook to prove that the maker owned property at the time on which the judgment was a lien, and this was ruled [89]*89out. We think this was error. It was proved, and not disputed, that the judgment was not canceled, so that the condition as to cancellation was material. For these reasons, and without considering the other exceptions in the case, we think the judgment must be reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellants to abide the event.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

16 N.Y.S. 88, 40 N.Y. St. Rep. 692, 1891 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 327, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bradley-currier-co-v-meyer-nynyccityct-1891.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack