Kamlah v. Salter

New York Court of Common Pleas

Kamlah v. Salter

6 Abb. Pr. 226, 1 Hilt. 558

DecidedApril 15, 1858

StatusPublished

This text of 6 Abb. Pr. 226 (Kamlah v. Salter) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Common Pleas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Kamlah v. Salter, 6 Abb. Pr. 226, 1 Hilt. 558 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1858).

Pincite

Opinion

By the Court.

*—Brady, J.

The plaintiffs allege that the defendants indorsed and delivered to them the note in suit. The defendants deny that they indorsed and delivered it to the plaintiffs. The note is payable to their own order. They do not deny that they indorsed the note, nor do they set up any matter assailing the plaintiffs’ possession of the note. When a note is payable to the order of the maker, and indorsed by him, in legal effect it is indorsed to any person who may hold it; and the denial of the mere indorsement or delivery to the holder, is not the denial of a material averment. It may be assumed ■that the thing thus denied is not literally true, and yet the defendants would be liable. The mere possession of the note is sufficient to put the defendants to their defence, if any they [228]*228have ; and as they have not denied any of the facts by which", possession could lawfully be acquired, they do not present any defence to the action.

The order at the special term must be affirmed, with $10 costs..

Present, Daly, P. J., Brady and Hilton, JJ.

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

By the Court.

*—Brady, J.

The plaintiffs allege that the defendants indorsed and delivered to them the note in suit. The defendants deny that they indorsed and delivered it to the plaintiffs. The note is payable to their own order. They do not deny that they indorsed the note, nor do they set up any matter assailing the plaintiffs’ possession of the note. When a note is payable to the order of the maker, and indorsed by him, in legal effect it is indorsed to any person who may hold it; and the denial of the mere indorsement or delivery to the holder, is not the denial of a material averment. It may be assumed ■that the thing thus denied is not literally true, and yet the defendants would be liable. The mere possession of the note is sufficient to put the defendants to their defence, if any they [228]*228have ; and as they have not denied any of the facts by which", possession could lawfully be acquired, they do not present any defence to the action.

The order at the special term must be affirmed, with $10 costs..

Present, Daly, P. J., Brady and Hilton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 Abb. Pr. 226, 1 Hilt. 558, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kamlah-v-salter-nyctcompl-1858.