Myers v. Palmer

New York Supreme Court

Myers v. Palmer

18 Johns. 167

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedAugust 15, 1820

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 18 Johns. 167 (Myers v. Palmer) 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

Myers v. Palmer, 18 Johns. 167 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1820).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

It is not objected that the witnesses were incompetent, on the ground of interest; but it is insisted that this case comes within the rule established in Walter v. Shelly, (1 Term Rep. 296.) and which has been adopted by this Court; (Winton v. Saidler, 3 Johns, Cases, 185; Coleman v. Wise, 2 Johns. Rep. 165; Baker v. Arnold, 1 Caines' Rep. 258; Woodhull v. Holmes, 10 Johns. Rep. 231; Skilding and another v. Warren, 15 Johns. Rep. 270.) to wit, that the party to a promissory note, as maker or endorser, shall not be admitted to impeach the original validity of the note to which they have given currency. It would, however, be a misapplication and abuse of this rule to extend it to this case. The reason and policy of the rule is, to guard and protect bona fide holders of negotiable paper, which they have honestly received in the usual course of business. Here • the party who asks the benefit of that rule, is the very person who committed the fraud in the inception of the note, which is now relied on by the defendants to annul the contract. The nonsuit ought to be confirmed.

Judgment of nonsuit.

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

Per Curiam.

It is not objected that the witnesses were incompetent, on the ground of interest; but it is insisted that this case comes within the rule established in Walter v. Shelly, (1 Term Rep. 296.) and which has been adopted by this Court; (Winton v. Saidler, 3 Johns, Cases, 185; Coleman v. Wise, 2 Johns. Rep. 165; Baker v. Arnold, 1 Caines' Rep. 258; Woodhull v. Holmes, 10 Johns. Rep. 231; Skilding and another v. Warren, 15 Johns. Rep. 270.) to wit, that the party to a promissory note, as maker or endorser, shall not be admitted to impeach the original validity of the note to which they have given currency. It would, however, be a misapplication and abuse of this rule to extend it to this case. The reason and policy of the rule is, to guard and protect bona fide holders of negotiable paper, which they have honestly received in the usual course of business. Here • the party who asks the benefit of that rule, is the very person who committed the fraud in the inception of the note, which is now relied on by the defendants to annul the contract. The nonsuit ought to be confirmed.

Judgment of nonsuit.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

18 Johns. 167, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/myers-v-palmer-nysupct-1820.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack