First National Bank of Angelica v. . Hall

New York Court of Appeals

First National Bank of Angelica v. . Hall

44 N.Y. 395, 1871 N.Y. LEXIS 55

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 1, 1871

StatusPublished

Cited by12 cases

This text of 44 N.Y. 395 (First National Bank of Angelica v. . Hall) 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

First National Bank of Angelica v. . Hall, 44 N.Y. 395, 1871 N.Y. LEXIS 55 (N.Y. 1871).

Pincite

Opinion

Earl, C.

There was no offer to show that the plaintiff knew any of the facts which the defendant offered to prove as constituting his defense, and hence the plaintiff must be treated as a Iona fide holder for value, unless its title was defective, because the draft was payable to the order of ¡Robinson, cashier, and was not endorsed by him. But under the circumstances of this case, it is quite clear that the bank was the payee of the note and not Robinson its cashier. It is alleged in the complaint and admitted in the answer, that the draft was payable “ to the order of the plaintiff’s cashier, as such.” In the case of The Bank of Genesee v. Patchin Bank (19 N. Y., 312), S. B. Stokes, the cashier of the Patehin Bank, sent to the Bank of Genesee to be discounted, a bill of exchange payable to the order of “ S. B. Stokes, Oas.,” endorsed by him with the same addition to his signature, and enclosed in a letter dated at the banking-house and sighed “ S. B. Stokes, Oas.?’ It was held that these circumstances imported that the endorsement was that of the Patehin Bank in the regular course of business and not that of S. B. Stokes individually. In Bank of New York v. Bank of Ohio (29 N. Y., 619), it was held that a draft drawn *398 payable to “D. 0. Converse, Esq., cashier,” who was the cashier of the defendant, was in judgment of law payable to the bank of which he was the officer. Hence, in this case the position of the parties is the same as if this draft had been made payable to the plaintiff by name instead of its cashier, and no endorsement was necessary to give it the position of a bona fide holder, or to enable it to sue. The bank declined to discount the draft without another name. It was taken away and came back with another name, and then the bank discounted it. I am unable to discover any defect in its title, or any defense in the evidence offered.

The judgment should be affirmed with costs.

All concur for affirmance.

■ Judgment affirmed with costs.

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

Earl, C.

There was no offer to show that the plaintiff knew any of the facts which the defendant offered to prove as constituting his defense, and hence the plaintiff must be treated as a Iona fide holder for value, unless its title was defective, because the draft was payable to the order of ¡Robinson, cashier, and was not endorsed by him. But under the circumstances of this case, it is quite clear that the bank was the payee of the note and not Robinson its cashier. It is alleged in the complaint and admitted in the answer, that the draft was payable “ to the order of the plaintiff’s cashier, as such.” In the case of The Bank of Genesee v. Patchin Bank (19 N. Y., 312), S. B. Stokes, the cashier of the Patehin Bank, sent to the Bank of Genesee to be discounted, a bill of exchange payable to the order of “ S. B. Stokes, Oas.,” endorsed by him with the same addition to his signature, and enclosed in a letter dated at the banking-house and sighed “ S. B. Stokes, Oas.?’ It was held that these circumstances imported that the endorsement was that of the Patehin Bank in the regular course of business and not that of S. B. Stokes individually. In Bank of New York v. Bank of Ohio (29 N. Y., 619), it was held that a draft drawn *398 payable to “D. 0. Converse, Esq., cashier,” who was the cashier of the defendant, was in judgment of law payable to the bank of which he was the officer. Hence, in this case the position of the parties is the same as if this draft had been made payable to the plaintiff by name instead of its cashier, and no endorsement was necessary to give it the position of a bona fide holder, or to enable it to sue. The bank declined to discount the draft without another name. It was taken away and came back with another name, and then the bank discounted it. I am unable to discover any defect in its title, or any defense in the evidence offered.

The judgment should be affirmed with costs.

All concur for affirmance.

■ Judgment affirmed with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

44 N.Y. 395, 1871 N.Y. LEXIS 55, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/first-national-bank-of-angelica-v-hall-ny-1871.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack