Manufacturers' Finance Co. v. Miller

Supreme Court of New Jersey

Manufacturers' Finance Co. v. Miller

137 A. 717, 5 N.J. Misc. 676, 1927 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 163

DecidedJune 7, 1927

StatusPublished

This text of 137 A. 717 (Manufacturers' Finance Co. v. Miller) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Manufacturers' Finance Co. v. Miller, 137 A. 717, 5 N.J. Misc. 676, 1927 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 163 (N.J. 1927).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum.

Defendant Miller has a rule to show cause why a judgment, by default, against him should not be opened. The other defendants, joint makers of a promissory note, do not [677]*677contest the judgment. The default charged is lack of attention of an attorney retained by defendant Miller. We need not consider this point because an examination of the depositions taken under the rule satisfies us that the proposed defenses are not legal or meritorious.

Miller signed, for the accommodation of the other defendants, a note for the purchase price of an automobile, which note he knew was to be endorsed over to the plaintiff. His claim of an equitable defense might possibly have some value if the payee were the plaintiff, but has none at all in a suit by an endorsee holding in due course.

The rule is discharged, with costs.

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

Memorandum.

Defendant Miller has a rule to show cause why a judgment, by default, against him should not be opened. The other defendants, joint makers of a promissory note, do not [677]*677contest the judgment. The default charged is lack of attention of an attorney retained by defendant Miller. We need not consider this point because an examination of the depositions taken under the rule satisfies us that the proposed defenses are not legal or meritorious.

Miller signed, for the accommodation of the other defendants, a note for the purchase price of an automobile, which note he knew was to be endorsed over to the plaintiff. His claim of an equitable defense might possibly have some value if the payee were the plaintiff, but has none at all in a suit by an endorsee holding in due course.

The rule is discharged, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

137 A. 717, 5 N.J. Misc. 676, 1927 N.J. Sup. Ct. LEXIS 163, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/manufacturers-finance-co-v-miller-nj-1927.