Murphy v. G. F. & M. J. Merchant

The Superior Court of New York City

Murphy v. G. F. & M. J. Merchant

6 Duer 679

The Superior Court of New York City·Decided February 15, 1857·Published

Opinion

An allegation in the complaint that the note was made by the defendant, AB_, and “for a further inducement to the plaintiff to accept the same, was indorsed by the defendant, C-D-, and was then delivered to and indorsed by the plaintiff,” held, insufficient to charge G-D-, the indorser, with liability, where the note was made payable to order of the plaintiff.

It seems, that it is very doubtful whether any evidence of a parol agreement, varying the legal rights or obligation of the payee and second indorser, can be admitted. (Reported in 14 How. Pr. R. 189.)

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

An allegation in the complaint that the note was made by the defendant, AB_, and “for a further inducement to the plaintiff to accept the same, was indorsed by the defendant, C-D-, and was then delivered to and indorsed by the plaintiff,” held, insufficient to charge G-D-, the indorser, with liability, where the note was made payable to order of the plaintiff.

It seems, that it is very doubtful whether any evidence of a parol agreement, varying the legal rights or obligation of the payee and second indorser, can be admitted. (Reported in 14 How. Pr. R. 189.)

Murphy v. G. F. & M. J. Merchant, 6 Duer 679 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1857).

Pincite

6 Duer 679 (Murphy v. G. F. & M. J. Merchant) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.