¶1The defendant’s answer was false. He does not now pretend that he did not give the note; nor does the answer set up the pretext that the suit was brought for the benefit of Wilson and Calk-ins, the payees and endorsers. The note having been transferred to the plaintiff before it was due, could not have been impeached by the defendant Andrews, on the ground of a want of consideration. It is quite clear that the defence was merely for delay and without the shadow *66of any legal excuse. It was therefore “ unfairly and unreasonably conducted,” within the meaning of the code, § 308, as it unjustly threw the plaintiff over a circuit. I shall therefore direct that an allowance of ten per cent, on the recovery be made to the plaintiff and be inserted in the record by the clerk.
4 How. Pr. 65
Willard v. Andrews
Decided June 15, 1849
New York Supreme Court · decided 1849-06-15
—On the 18th September, 1848, the defendant made his promissory note in writing to Wilson and Calkins for the sum of three hundred dollars, payable at the Troy City Bank, two months after date, and Wilson and Calkins on the same day endorsed and transferred the said note to the plaintiff who then and there became the owner of it. When the note became due it was protested for non-payment, and an action was brought against the maker and endorsers.
Decided 1849-06-15