Morgan v. . the Bank of the State of New-York

New York Court of Appeals

Morgan v. . the Bank of the State of New-York

11 N.Y. 404

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 5, 1854

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 11 N.Y. 404 (Morgan v. . the Bank of the State of New-York) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Morgan v. . the Bank of the State of New-York, 11 N.Y. 404 (N.Y. 1854).

Pincite

Opinion

Johnson, J.

The bank had received from the plaintiff deposits of cash amounting to $716.92, and were consequently indebted to him in that amount. To an action for this sum they claimed, by way of defense, to have paid the amount by the plaintiff’s order. This defense they failed to prove upon the trial. They proved an order .by the plaintiff to pay the money to G. W. Corlies & Co., or their order, and the payment of the money thereupon to somebody, but did not prove that the money was paid to G. W. Corlies & Co., or their order. On the contrary,_the plaintiff proved that the indorsements of the checks with the name of G. W. Corlies & Co. were forgeries. Upon these facts the plaintiff was entitled to recover. The money had not been paid to and according to the plaintiff’s order. (Coggill v. Am. Exc. Bank, 1 Comst. 113. Weisser v. Denison, Court of Appeals, Mar. T., 1854.) The judgment should be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Johnson, J.

The bank had received from the plaintiff deposits of cash amounting to $716.92, and were consequently indebted to him in that amount. To an action for this sum they claimed, by way of defense, to have paid the amount by the plaintiff’s order. This defense they failed to prove upon the trial. They proved an order .by the plaintiff to pay the money to G. W. Corlies & Co., or their order, and the payment of the money thereupon to somebody, but did not prove that the money was paid to G. W. Corlies & Co., or their order. On the contrary,_the plaintiff proved that the indorsements of the checks with the name of G. W. Corlies & Co. were forgeries. Upon these facts the plaintiff was entitled to recover. The money had not been paid to and according to the plaintiff’s order. (Coggill v. Am. Exc. Bank, 1 Comst. 113. Weisser v. Denison, Court of Appeals, Mar. T., 1854.) The judgment should be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

11 N.Y. 404, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morgan-v-the-bank-of-the-state-of-new-york-ny-1854.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack