Brown v. . Leavitt

New York Court of Appeals

Brown v. . Leavitt

31 N.Y. 113

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 5, 1865

StatusPublished

Cited by35 cases

This text of 31 N.Y. 113 (Brown v. . Leavitt) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Brown v. . Leavitt, 31 N.Y. 113 (N.Y. 1865).

Pincite

Opinion

Davis, J.

The note in suit was indorsed and delivered by Zebley & Co. to plaintiff’s testator, before it fell due, in payment, so far as it went, of a larger note than held by the testator. It was received with other notes, and a balance in cash, as such payment of the larger note, delivered up to Zebley & Co.

In this State it is settled by abundant authority that this transaction constituted the plaintiff’s testator a holder, for value, of the note in question. (Bank of Salina v. Babcock, 21 Wend., 499; Bank of St. Albans v. Gilleland, 23 id., 311; Bank of Sandusky v. Scoville, 24 id., 115; White v. Springfield Bank, 3 Sandf. S. C., 222; Young v. Lee, 18 Barb., 188; S. C. affirmed, 2 Kern., 534; Stetthein, v . Meyer, 33 Barb., 215; Mohawk Bank v. Corey, 1 Hill, 515; Meads v. Bank of Albany, 25 N. Y., 149; Stalker v. McDonald, 6 Hill, 93.)

A further discussion of the question might lead to a suspicion that the law was in doubt on the point,

The judgment should be affirmed.

AH the judges concurring, judgment affirmed.

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

Davis, J.

The note in suit was indorsed and delivered by Zebley & Co. to plaintiff’s testator, before it fell due, in payment, so far as it went, of a larger note than held by the testator. It was received with other notes, and a balance in cash, as such payment of the larger note, delivered up to Zebley & Co.

In this State it is settled by abundant authority that this transaction constituted the plaintiff’s testator a holder, for value, of the note in question. (Bank of Salina v. Babcock, 21 Wend., 499; Bank of St. Albans v. Gilleland, 23 id., 311; Bank of Sandusky v. Scoville, 24 id., 115; White v. Springfield Bank, 3 Sandf. S. C., 222; Young v. Lee, 18 Barb., 188; S. C. affirmed, 2 Kern., 534; Stetthein, v . Meyer, 33 Barb., 215; Mohawk Bank v. Corey, 1 Hill, 515; Meads v. Bank of Albany, 25 N. Y., 149; Stalker v. McDonald, 6 Hill, 93.)

A further discussion of the question might lead to a suspicion that the law was in doubt on the point,

The judgment should be affirmed.

AH the judges concurring, judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

31 N.Y. 113, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brown-v-leavitt-ny-1865.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack