¶1The judge ought to have nonsuited the plaintiffs at the trial, the verdict must therefore be set aside with costs to abide the event of the suit. Thel’e was not evidence sufficient, that Lingo was one of the house of M'Guire & Co. who drew the bill, to let the cause go to the jury. It was a verdict clearly against the weight of evidence, and ruled wrong by the judge. The court, however, do not decide between the case in Sayer, and that in D. & E. nor whether it was, in the present instance necessary to prove the handwriting of the indorsor,- because it is not necessary to the judgment we now deliver.
3 Cai. Cas. 92
Bogert v. Lingo
Decided May 15, 1805
New York Supreme Court · decided 1805-05-15
ASSUMPSIT, against the defendants as the drawers of a bill exhhaiige, signed “ M-Glare Itf Co, addressed to “ Cornelius and indorsed “ William Robinson constituting the firm of M'Guire Cf Coj drew, the bill in question on Cornelius Lingo, who was oiie of the house of M'Guire and Lingo, but the two partnerships were, in fact, really distinct concerns, as appeared from the testimony of PerSotis knowing both houses, and deriving their information from the partners themselves,…
Decided 1805-05-15