Port Huron Engine & Thresher Co. v. Baldwin Contracting Co.

New York Court of Appeals

Port Huron Engine & Thresher Co. v. Baldwin Contracting Co.

104 N.E. 1139, 210 N.Y. 616, 1914 N.Y. LEXIS 1379

New York Court of Appeals·Decided March 10, 1914·Published

Opinion

The jury had a right, under the evidence, to find that the Acme Company indorsed the notes solely for the purpose of transferring title thereto to the plaintiff and for its accommodation. The giving of the notes by the Baldwin Company did not prevent it from asserting and proving its counterclaim, and the question of pleading was not sufficiently raised to prevent its counterclaim being considered.

Judgment affirmed, with costs to each defendant.

Concur: Willard Bartlett, Oh. J., Hiscocit, Chare, Cuddeback, Hogan, Miller and Cardozo, JJ.

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

The jury had a right, under the evidence, to find that the Acme Company indorsed the notes solely for the purpose of transferring title thereto to the plaintiff and for its accommodation. The giving of the notes by the Baldwin Company did not prevent it from asserting and proving its counterclaim, and the question of pleading was not sufficiently raised to prevent its counterclaim being considered.

Judgment affirmed, with costs to each defendant.

Concur: Willard Bartlett, Oh. J., Hiscocit, Chare, Cuddeback, Hogan, Miller and Cardozo, JJ.

Port Huron Engine & Thresher Co. v. Baldwin Contracting Co., 104 N.E. 1139, 210 N.Y. 616, 1914 N.Y. LEXIS 1379 (N.Y. 1914).

Pincite

104 N.E. 1139 (Port Huron Engine & Thresher Co. v. Baldwin Contracting Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.