Carter Rice Co. v. Howard

City of New York Municipal Court

Carter Rice Co. v. Howard

15 Misc. 697, 71 N.Y. St. Rep. 866

DecidedFebruary 15, 1896

StatusPublished

This text of 15 Misc. 697 (Carter Rice Co. v. Howard) 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

Carter Rice Co. v. Howard, 15 Misc. 697, 71 N.Y. St. Rep. 866 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1896).

Pincite

Opinion

Van Wyck, Ch. J.

The plaintiff is the payee of the note sued upon, and defendant indorsed it for the maker before its • delivery to plaintiff. The Common Pleas has held in this case that the, statements, made to and by the defendant when he indorsed the .note were sufficient to overcome the legal presumption, from the irregular indorsement itself, that the irregular indorser was only liable as second indorser. The • proof of the statements to and • by the defendant at the time of the indorsement were .substantially, the same on both trials. The disputed questions of fact were submitted to the jury without objéction. or exception by defendant to the' judge’s, charge. The judgment and order are affirmed, with costs.''.

McCarthy, and Schuchman, JJ., c’oncur.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.

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

Van Wyck, Ch. J.

The plaintiff is the payee of the note sued upon, and defendant indorsed it for the maker before its • delivery to plaintiff. The Common Pleas has held in this case that the, statements, made to and by the defendant when he indorsed the .note were sufficient to overcome the legal presumption, from the irregular indorsement itself, that the irregular indorser was only liable as second indorser. The • proof of the statements to and • by the defendant at the time of the indorsement were .substantially, the same on both trials. The disputed questions of fact were submitted to the jury without objéction. or exception by defendant to the' judge’s, charge. The judgment and order are affirmed, with costs.''.

McCarthy, and Schuchman, JJ., c’oncur.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

15 Misc. 697, 71 N.Y. St. Rep. 866, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carter-rice-co-v-howard-nynyccityct-1896.