Lordi Construction Co. v. Armstrong

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Lordi Construction Co. v. Armstrong

130 Misc. 904, 225 N.Y.S. 731, 1927 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1249

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedDecember 20, 1927

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 130 Misc. 904 (Lordi Construction Co. v. Armstrong) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lordi Construction Co. v. Armstrong, 130 Misc. 904, 225 N.Y.S. 731, 1927 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1249 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The action is on a note. The maker is not joined in the action, which is brought against the indorsers only.

The first separate defense, which is to the effect that the indorsers were accommodation indorsers, need not receive any consideration, as this is not a defense. The third is that the plaintiff and the maker have entered into an agreement extending and qualifying the terms of liability and have thus discharged the indorsers. There being no allegation that the agreement was for a valuable consideration, nor that the defendants were ignorant thereof, the allegations of the defense are insufficient.

The second and fourth defenses undertake to set up counterclaims in favor of the maker against the payee. It seems unnecessary to discuss this point in view of the settled law that such defense or counterclaim is not available to an indorser or guarantor. (American Guild v. Damon, 186 N. Y. 360; Consolidated Steel Corp. v. Pressed Steel Car Co., 118 Misc. 480.)

Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion granted, with ten dollars costs, with leave, however, to defendants to plead over as to the third defense within six days after service of order entered hereon on payment of said costs.

All concur; present, Bijur, Levy and Crain, JJ.

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

Per Curiam.

The action is on a note. The maker is not joined in the action, which is brought against the indorsers only.

The first separate defense, which is to the effect that the indorsers were accommodation indorsers, need not receive any consideration, as this is not a defense. The third is that the plaintiff and the maker have entered into an agreement extending and qualifying the terms of liability and have thus discharged the indorsers. There being no allegation that the agreement was for a valuable consideration, nor that the defendants were ignorant thereof, the allegations of the defense are insufficient.

The second and fourth defenses undertake to set up counterclaims in favor of the maker against the payee. It seems unnecessary to discuss this point in view of the settled law that such defense or counterclaim is not available to an indorser or guarantor. (American Guild v. Damon, 186 N. Y. 360; Consolidated Steel Corp. v. Pressed Steel Car Co., 118 Misc. 480.)

Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion granted, with ten dollars costs, with leave, however, to defendants to plead over as to the third defense within six days after service of order entered hereon on payment of said costs.

All concur; present, Bijur, Levy and Crain, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

130 Misc. 904, 225 N.Y.S. 731, 1927 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1249, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lordi-construction-co-v-armstrong-nyappterm-1927.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack