Hook v. Pratt

New York Supreme Court

Hook v. Pratt

21 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 396

DecidedJune 15, 1878

StatusPublished

This text of 21 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 396 (Hook v. Pratt) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hook v. Pratt, 21 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 396 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1878).

Pincite

Opinion

■Smith, J.:

The only question in this case is whether the paper sued on imports a consideration, in view of the restrictive character of the indorsement, or if it does not, whether a consideration was proved.

We concur in the conclusion of the judge at the Circuit, that the paper imports a consideration on its face.

We are also prepared to hold, if it were necessary to the disposition of the case, that in view of the circumstances attending the making of the draft and indorsement, the bill is evidence of a promise by the drawer to pay the mother of the child the money which she should expend in his support,' at least to the amount of the income of the fund derived from the proceeds of the bill during the minority of the child. The promise of the father of an illegitimate child, who acknowledges the child as his own, to pay the mother with whom the child lives for its support, is founded upon a sufficient consideration. (Hicks v. Gregory, 8 C. B., 378; Smith v. Roche, 6 C. B. [N. S.], 223; Hesketh v. Gowing, 5 Esp., 131; Nichole v. Allen, 3 C. & P., 36; Jennings v. Brown, 9 Mees. & Wels., 496; Bunn v. Winthrop, 1 Johns. Ch. 329.)

The judgment should be affirmed.

Present — Talcott, P. J., Smith and Hardin, JJ.

Judgment affirmed.

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

■Smith, J.:

The only question in this case is whether the paper sued on imports a consideration, in view of the restrictive character of the indorsement, or if it does not, whether a consideration was proved.

We concur in the conclusion of the judge at the Circuit, that the paper imports a consideration on its face.

We are also prepared to hold, if it were necessary to the disposition of the case, that in view of the circumstances attending the making of the draft and indorsement, the bill is evidence of a promise by the drawer to pay the mother of the child the money which she should expend in his support,' at least to the amount of the income of the fund derived from the proceeds of the bill during the minority of the child. The promise of the father of an illegitimate child, who acknowledges the child as his own, to pay the mother with whom the child lives for its support, is founded upon a sufficient consideration. (Hicks v. Gregory, 8 C. B., 378; Smith v. Roche, 6 C. B. [N. S.], 223; Hesketh v. Gowing, 5 Esp., 131; Nichole v. Allen, 3 C. & P., 36; Jennings v. Brown, 9 Mees. & Wels., 496; Bunn v. Winthrop, 1 Johns. Ch. 329.)

The judgment should be affirmed.

Present — Talcott, P. J., Smith and Hardin, JJ.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

21 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 396, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hook-v-pratt-nysupct-1878.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack