¶1The evidence offered on the párt of the defendant ought to have been received, according to the principle which governed the case of Wiffin v. Roberts, (1 Esp. Cas. 261.,) and. which was adopted and sanctioned by this; court in Brown v. Mott, (7 Johns. Rep. 361.) This suit'is by the endorsee-against his immediate endorser. And in the case of Livingston v. Hastie & Patrick, (2 Caines’ Rep. 248.,) it is explicitly laid down, that the payee will be allowed, against the drawer, and the endorsee against his immediate endorser, to show what was the real consideration passing between them. If this suit was by the endorsee against the maker of the note, it would not-lie in his mouth to, say the plaintiff purchased it at a discount; but as the defendant was the immediate endorser of the plaintiff, the proof offered that the note was purchased for 90 dollars, under the face Of it,, should have been admitted. A Hew trial must, therefore, be granted, unless the plaintiff wilif pemit the 90 cjollais, and the interest which hag been vecovered fhcreon,
13 Johns. 52
Braman v. Hess
Decided January 15, 1816
New York Supreme Court · decided 1816-01-15
THIS was án action of assumpsit by the endorsee against the endorser of a promissory note;; the cause, was tried at the Mont* gomery circuit, irj 1815,. before Mr. J. Yates. • The note was for 343 dollars and 25 cents, and was 'dráwn by one Edward Williams, j.un., .in favour of the' defendant and ■John Yerdan, and by them endorsed to the plaintiff.
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1816-01-15
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently March 1913
8 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
View the full empirical analysis of this case →