Stockbridge v. Schoonmaker

New York Supreme Court

Stockbridge v. Schoonmaker

45 Barb. 100, 1865 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 131

DecidedNovember 6, 1865

StatusPublished

This text of 45 Barb. 100 (Stockbridge v. Schoonmaker) 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

Stockbridge v. Schoonmaker, 45 Barb. 100, 1865 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 131 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1865).

Pincite

Opinion

By the Court, Geo Gr. Barnard, J.

The defendant’s letter is not in itself a guaranty to the plaintiff for the price of the goods sold by him to Valentine Arrent. The defendant’s-undertaking is that, if required, he will indorse for Arrent to an amount not exceeding one' hundred dollars. The plaintiff has never required of the defendant this indorsement; and without this no action can be maintained against this defendant, by him. (McIvor v. Richardson, 1 M. & Selw. 55. Stafford v. Low, 16 John. 67.) The guaranty was conditional. It was to be created if required, and then by indorsement only. The defendant’s protection may have depended upon the form of the security he undertook for Arrent. He could not be made liable in any other form, until after a refusal by him to indorse Arrent’s note.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Ingraham, Leonard and Geo, G. Barnard, Justices.]

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

By the Court, Geo Gr. Barnard, J.

The defendant’s letter is not in itself a guaranty to the plaintiff for the price of the goods sold by him to Valentine Arrent. The defendant’s-undertaking is that, if required, he will indorse for Arrent to an amount not exceeding one' hundred dollars. The plaintiff has never required of the defendant this indorsement; and without this no action can be maintained against this defendant, by him. (McIvor v. Richardson, 1 M. & Selw. 55. Stafford v. Low, 16 John. 67.) The guaranty was conditional. It was to be created if required, and then by indorsement only. The defendant’s protection may have depended upon the form of the security he undertook for Arrent. He could not be made liable in any other form, until after a refusal by him to indorse Arrent’s note.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Ingraham, Leonard and Geo, G. Barnard, Justices.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

45 Barb. 100, 1865 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 131, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stockbridge-v-schoonmaker-nysupct-1865.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack