Price v. Keen

40 N.J.L. 332
Supreme Court of New Jersey·Decided June 15, 1878·Published

Opinion

The opinion of the court was delivered by

The Chancellor.

It was held by the Supreme Court, in Cumberland Bank v. Hann, 3 Harr. 222, that in an action by the endorsee against the maker upon a promissory note, endorsed to the plaintiff, bona fide, and for a valuable consideration, the simple fact that the endorser was, at the time of making the endorsement, indebted to the defendant, was no defence. That decision has been followed for now nearly forty years. It is satisfactory to this court. Its principle governs this case. The judgment of the Supreme Court will, therefore, be affirmed:

For affirmance — The Chancellor, Dixon, Knapp, Reed, Sculler, Yan Syckel, Woolhull, Clement, Doll, Green, Lilly, Wales. 12.

For reversal—None.

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

Price v. Keen, 40 N.J.L. 332 (N.J. 1878).

40 N.J.L. 332 (Price v. Keen) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.