Hayes v. Mestaniz

Superior Court of New York

Hayes v. Mestaniz

29 N.Y.S. 1114

CourtThe Superior Court of the City of New York and Buffalo

DecidedJuly 2, 1894

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 29 N.Y.S. 1114 (Hayes v. Mestaniz) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering The Superior Court of the City of New York and Buffalo primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hayes v. Mestaniz, 29 N.Y.S. 1114 (superctny 1894).

Pincite

Opinion

FREEDMAN, J.

The complaint is upon a promissory note made by the defendant to the order of the plaintiff. Upon the trial, the defendant at once assumed the burden of establishing lack of consideration for the note sued upon. At the close of the evidence given by the defendant, both parties moved for the direction of a verdict. Neither claimed that there was any question of fact for the jury. The evidence not only failed to establish lack of consideration, but showed a sufficient consideration; namely, the surrender of a prior note, upon which other parties were liable, even if the defendant, \vho had indorsed the same, was not. This prior note came from the possession of the defendant, and was put in evidence by him. Under the circumstances, the verdict was properly directed for the plaintiff. The judgment and order should be affirmed, with costs.

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

FREEDMAN, J.

The complaint is upon a promissory note made by the defendant to the order of the plaintiff. Upon the trial, the defendant at once assumed the burden of establishing lack of consideration for the note sued upon. At the close of the evidence given by the defendant, both parties moved for the direction of a verdict. Neither claimed that there was any question of fact for the jury. The evidence not only failed to establish lack of consideration, but showed a sufficient consideration; namely, the surrender of a prior note, upon which other parties were liable, even if the defendant, \vho had indorsed the same, was not. This prior note came from the possession of the defendant, and was put in evidence by him. Under the circumstances, the verdict was properly directed for the plaintiff. The judgment and order should be affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 N.Y.S. 1114, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hayes-v-mestaniz-superctny-1894.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack