T. F. Smith Co. v. America-Europe Co.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

T. F. Smith Co. v. America-Europe Co.

128 N.Y.S. 81

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedFebruary 15, 1911

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 128 N.Y.S. 81 (T. F. Smith Co. v. America-Europe Co.) 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

T. F. Smith Co. v. America-Europe Co., 128 N.Y.S. 81 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1911).

Pincite

Opinion

BIJUR, J.

Defendant appellant was the indorser of a promissory note made by the other defendant to the order of one Guest, who also indorsed the note. The note was protested for nonpayment. Appellant filed the proper affidavit, denying that he had received any notice of demand, protest, or nonpayment. The evidence of the notary is to the effect that he sent the notice of dishonor to appellant “c/0 Casco National Bank, Portland, Me.,” which was the address of the other indorser (payee).

While there are some vague hints in the evidence that the appellant might, nevertheless, have heard of the dishonor of the note, plaintiff failed to substantiate these hints by any evidence whatsoever. Appellant’s address in the city of New York was to be found both in the City Directory and the Telephone Directory, arid there is. no adequate explanation why the notice of dishonor was not sent to him there.

Judgment reversed, and 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

BIJUR, J.

Defendant appellant was the indorser of a promissory note made by the other defendant to the order of one Guest, who also indorsed the note. The note was protested for nonpayment. Appellant filed the proper affidavit, denying that he had received any notice of demand, protest, or nonpayment. The evidence of the notary is to the effect that he sent the notice of dishonor to appellant “c/0 Casco National Bank, Portland, Me.,” which was the address of the other indorser (payee).

While there are some vague hints in the evidence that the appellant might, nevertheless, have heard of the dishonor of the note, plaintiff failed to substantiate these hints by any evidence whatsoever. Appellant’s address in the city of New York was to be found both in the City Directory and the Telephone Directory, arid there is. no adequate explanation why the notice of dishonor was not sent to him there.

Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

128 N.Y.S. 81, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/t-f-smith-co-v-america-europe-co-nyappterm-1911.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack