¶1I dissent. It seems to me that the answer admits the absolute making and delivery of the note in suit. But, if this could be considered doubtful, the evidence tends to establish, not that the note had no valid inception, but, on the contrary, that it had. Defendant pleaded, and attempted to prove by parol testimony, that the note was not to be paid in cash at the time named, in accordance with the express terms of the written instrument, but that, if at the date of its maturity the payee was indebted to the maker upon an entirely separate and distinct contract, the amount of such indebtedness should be offset *897against the amount of the note. This may no't be done. (Jamestown Business College Assn. v. Allen, 172 N. Y. 291.) If the action had been brought by the payee of the note, within the authority above cited, the evidence tending to establish the defense would have been incompetent. If we concede that the plaintiff stands in no better position than the payee of the note, his position, at least, is equally good. Thomas, J., concurred.
158 A.D. 896
Copans v. Dougan
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided July 15, 1913
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · decided 1913-07-15
Appeal by the plaintiff from a judgment of the Supreme Court, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Orange on the 17th day of February, 1913, dismissing his complaint, and also from an order, entered in said clerk’s office on the same day, denying a motion for a new trial. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.
Relies on Jamestown Business College Assn. v. . Allen
Decided 1913-07-15