Simers v. Halpern

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Simers v. Halpern

114 N.Y.S. 163

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJanuary 8, 1909

StatusPublished

This text of 114 N.Y.S. 163 (Simers v. Halpern) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Simers v. Halpern, 114 N.Y.S. 163 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1909).

Pincite

Opinion

BISCHOFF, J.

To an action by the indorsee of a demand note the maker interposed the defense that the note was made and delivered without consideration, and that the plaintiff knew of the absence of consideration and himself parted with no value. Upon the trial the proof offered by the defendant was to the effect that the note was given by him to a trade union as earnest for his observance of an agreement with the union, and that he was not in default of that agreement in such wise as to have justified the union in negotiating the note. This did not establish the defense pleaded; and, since the judgment appealed from was rendered despite the plaintiff’s objection to the reception of evidence not relevant to the issues, there must be a new trial of the cause. Consideration for the note, at its inception, was afforded by the conditions assumed in the agreement on the part of the party to whom it was delivered—that is, the union (Jacobs v. Cohen, 183 N. Y. 207, 76 N. E. 5, 2 L. R. A. [N. S.] 292,. 111 Am. St. Rep. 730) ; and while the defendant might resist the plaintiff’s demand upon the theory of a diversion, and litigate the equities thus arising upon proof that the plaintiff was not a bona fide holder (Mitchell v. Baldwin, 88 App. Div. 265, 84 N. Y. Supp. 1043)’, the defense pleaded did not serve to apprise the plaintiff that these issues were tendered.

The judgment must therefore be reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event. All concur.

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

BISCHOFF, J.

To an action by the indorsee of a demand note the maker interposed the defense that the note was made and delivered without consideration, and that the plaintiff knew of the absence of consideration and himself parted with no value. Upon the trial the proof offered by the defendant was to the effect that the note was given by him to a trade union as earnest for his observance of an agreement with the union, and that he was not in default of that agreement in such wise as to have justified the union in negotiating the note. This did not establish the defense pleaded; and, since the judgment appealed from was rendered despite the plaintiff’s objection to the reception of evidence not relevant to the issues, there must be a new trial of the cause. Consideration for the note, at its inception, was afforded by the conditions assumed in the agreement on the part of the party to whom it was delivered—that is, the union (Jacobs v. Cohen, 183 N. Y. 207, 76 N. E. 5, 2 L. R. A. [N. S.] 292,. 111 Am. St. Rep. 730) ; and while the defendant might resist the plaintiff’s demand upon the theory of a diversion, and litigate the equities thus arising upon proof that the plaintiff was not a bona fide holder (Mitchell v. Baldwin, 88 App. Div. 265, 84 N. Y. Supp. 1043)’, the defense pleaded did not serve to apprise the plaintiff that these issues were tendered.

The judgment must therefore be reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

114 N.Y.S. 163, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/simers-v-halpern-nyappterm-1909.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack