Mechanics' Banking Ass'n v. New York & Saugerties White Lead Co.

New York Supreme Court

Mechanics' Banking Ass'n v. New York & Saugerties White Lead Co.

20 How. Pr. 509

DecidedNovember 15, 1860

StatusPublished

This text of 20 How. Pr. 509 (Mechanics' Banking Ass'n v. New York & Saugerties White Lead Co.) 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

Mechanics' Banking Ass'n v. New York & Saugerties White Lead Co., 20 How. Pr. 509 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1860).

Pincite

Opinion

Hogeboom, Justice.

I think this judgment must be affirmed, for the reasons stated in the opinion of the learned justice who tried this cause. The authority of McCullough [510]*510to sign and indorse notes for the White Lead Company, is sufficiently established. Townsend was an accommodation maker of the note. The evidence leaves it doubtful whether the New York and Saugerties White Lead Company was an accommodation or business indorser of the note, and the learned judge has not explicitly found that fact. But assuming’ that it was only an accommodation indorser, it appears that the note was a negotiable instrument, in the ordinary form of commercial paper, indorsed by corporations having authority in their ligitímate business to indorse commercial paper, discounted by the plaintiffs in good faith and for value before maturity, with no facts before them to induce a suspicion that the paper was not business paper, and having no knowledge that it was otherwise. The circumstances were such as to lead to the presumption that it was business paper, and the sole question is, whether the plaintiffs were bound explicitly to inquire and ascertain whether the indorsement of the White Lead Company was a mere accommodation indorsement, in which case, they, as a corporation, would have no right to make the same. I think under the circumstances of this case, the plaintiffs were not required to institute such an investigation, and absolutely to ascertain the fact, and therefore that the judgment should be affirmed. The cases bearing on this •point are The Farmers’ and Mechanics’ Bank of Kent agt. The Butchers’ and Drovers’ Bank, (16 N. Y. Rep., 129, 131, 132, 135); The Bank of Genesee agt. The Patchin Bank, (13 N. Y. Rep., 315); Stoney agt. Am. Life Ins. Co., (11 Paige, 565; Safford agt. Van Wyck, (4 Hill, 442); .and other cases there cited.

Sutherland J., concurred.

Bonney, J., dissented.

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

Hogeboom, Justice.

I think this judgment must be affirmed, for the reasons stated in the opinion of the learned justice who tried this cause. The authority of McCullough [510]*510to sign and indorse notes for the White Lead Company, is sufficiently established. Townsend was an accommodation maker of the note. The evidence leaves it doubtful whether the New York and Saugerties White Lead Company was an accommodation or business indorser of the note, and the learned judge has not explicitly found that fact. But assuming’ that it was only an accommodation indorser, it appears that the note was a negotiable instrument, in the ordinary form of commercial paper, indorsed by corporations having authority in their ligitímate business to indorse commercial paper, discounted by the plaintiffs in good faith and for value before maturity, with no facts before them to induce a suspicion that the paper was not business paper, and having no knowledge that it was otherwise. The circumstances were such as to lead to the presumption that it was business paper, and the sole question is, whether the plaintiffs were bound explicitly to inquire and ascertain whether the indorsement of the White Lead Company was a mere accommodation indorsement, in which case, they, as a corporation, would have no right to make the same. I think under the circumstances of this case, the plaintiffs were not required to institute such an investigation, and absolutely to ascertain the fact, and therefore that the judgment should be affirmed. The cases bearing on this •point are The Farmers’ and Mechanics’ Bank of Kent agt. The Butchers’ and Drovers’ Bank, (16 N. Y. Rep., 129, 131, 132, 135); The Bank of Genesee agt. The Patchin Bank, (13 N. Y. Rep., 315); Stoney agt. Am. Life Ins. Co., (11 Paige, 565; Safford agt. Van Wyck, (4 Hill, 442); .and other cases there cited.

Sutherland J., concurred.

Bonney, J., dissented.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

20 How. Pr. 509, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mechanics-banking-assn-v-new-york-saugerties-white-lead-co-nysupct-1860.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack