¶1The exact interest which Bent, plaintiff’s assignor, had in the business of the aluminum plating is not decisive, or even material. Assuming a partnership, Curtiss had sold the business to his mother before the notes in question, except the $100, were given. The notes were given *709ostensibly to buy out Bent’s share in the business; and, while the defendant inserted in the letter inclosing the notes that they were to be payable “as soon as I can get a partner who has sufficient means to place the business on a sound footing, ” the words were idle. The business had been sold before the letter was written, and by means of the letter and the notes a good title was made to the business in the defendant’s mother. Defendant alone signed the bill of sale to her. It would be a very inequitable result if by this clause in the letter the defendant could get a title to the property which he had wrongfully sold, and pay Bent nothing. The judgment should be reversed, and a new trial granted, costs to abide event. All concur..
17 N.Y.S. 708
Beaudrias v. Curtiss
Decided February 8, 1892
New York Supreme Court · decided 1892-02-08
<p>Notes Payable on Demand—^Condition Imposed by Maker.</p> <p>Notes given on á purchase of the payee’s interest in a business were payable on demand, but the maker stated, in a letter inclosing the notes, that they were to be payable when he procured a partner. He had, however, previously disposed of the business. Held, that the notes were payable according to their terms.</p>
Reversed · Decided 1892-02-08