Campbell v. Butler
14 Johns. 349
Opinion
The question is, whether the plaintiff below was authorized to write such a contract over the names of the .endorsers of the note, respectively, and can sustain an action upon that contract. According to the decision in Nelson v. Dubois, and as the law is recognised in Herrick v. Carman, we think the plaintiff had a perfect right to recover, as on an original undertaking to pay, by each of the endorsers, as guarantors of the note. The defendant in error is, therefore, entitled to judgment.
Judgment for the defendant in error.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Campbell v. Butler, 14 Johns. 349 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1817).
14 Johns. 349 (Campbell v. Butler) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Haddock, Blanchard Co. v. . Haddock
85 N.E. 682 (New York Court of Appeals, 1908)
Cromwell v. Hewitt
40 N.Y. 491 (New York Court of Appeals, 1869)
Lester v. Paine
39 Barb. 616 (New York Supreme Court, 1862)
Moore v. . Cross
19 N.Y. 227 (New York Court of Appeals, 1859)
Pierse v. Irvine, Stone & McCormick
1 Minn. 369 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1857)
Hahn v. Hull
2 Abb. Pr. 352 (New York Court of Common Pleas, 1855)
Partridge v. Davis
20 Vt. 499 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1848)
Crozer v. Chambers
20 N.J.L. 256 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1844)
Sylvester v. Downer
18 Vt. 32 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1843)
Camden v. McKoy
4 Ill. 437 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1842)
Hall v. Newcomb
3 Hill & Den. 233 (New York Supreme Court, 1842)
Wells v. Jackson
6 Blackf. 40 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1841)
Smith v. Ide
3 Vt. 290 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1830)