Mitchell, Vance & Co. v. Spaulding

City of New York Municipal Court

Mitchell, Vance & Co. v. Spaulding

11 N.Y. St. Rep. 283

DecidedOctober 15, 1887

StatusPublished

This text of 11 N.Y. St. Rep. 283 (Mitchell, Vance & Co. v. Spaulding) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering City of New York Municipal Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Mitchell, Vance & Co. v. Spaulding, 11 N.Y. St. Rep. 283 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1887).

Pincite

Opinion

McAdam, C. J.

—The action is against the defendant as indorser of a promissory note made by Rosanna Spaulding to the order of Mitchell, Vance & Co., the plaintiffs. The action is by the payees, who were presumably the first indorsers on the note. There is nothing alleged in the complaint to bring the case within the exceptional rule laid down in Moore v. Cross (19 N. Y., 227). The evidence fails to show that the defendant indorsed the note with the intention of becoming liable thereon to the payees (the plaintiffs), and this intention cannot be inferred from anything found in the pleadings or proofs, particularly in opposition to the legal presumption created by the peculiar phraseology of the note, which has not been overcome. The complaint might have been dismissed for want of the allegations necessary to charge the defendant. MacTeague v. James, 2 City Ct. Rep., 52; Code, § 488, subd. 8, § 499.

It follows that the judgment appealed from, must be affirmed, with costs.

Nehrbas, J., concurs.

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

McAdam, C. J.

—The action is against the defendant as indorser of a promissory note made by Rosanna Spaulding to the order of Mitchell, Vance & Co., the plaintiffs. The action is by the payees, who were presumably the first indorsers on the note. There is nothing alleged in the complaint to bring the case within the exceptional rule laid down in Moore v. Cross (19 N. Y., 227). The evidence fails to show that the defendant indorsed the note with the intention of becoming liable thereon to the payees (the plaintiffs), and this intention cannot be inferred from anything found in the pleadings or proofs, particularly in opposition to the legal presumption created by the peculiar phraseology of the note, which has not been overcome. The complaint might have been dismissed for want of the allegations necessary to charge the defendant. MacTeague v. James, 2 City Ct. Rep., 52; Code, § 488, subd. 8, § 499.

It follows that the judgment appealed from, must be affirmed, with costs.

Nehrbas, J., concurs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

11 N.Y. St. Rep. 283, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mitchell-vance-co-v-spaulding-nynyccityct-1887.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack