Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

51 Barb. 203

Bromley v. Walker

New York Supreme Court

Decided March 2, 1868

New York Supreme Court · decided 1868-03-02

The complaint was upon a promissory for $200, made by the defendant Walker, dated May 1, 1866, payable three months after, date, with, interest, to the .order of John P. Van Allen, which note Van Allen indorsed and transferred to one D. P. Garrison, who indorsed and transferred it to the plaintiffs.

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently December 1912

1 state decisions

Relies on Stettheimer v. Meyer

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1868-03-02

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

By the Court, E. Darwin Smith, P. J.

¶1If it was necessary to hold that the plaintiffs received the note in question from Garrison, in the ordinary course of business, and for value, I should have some doubts whether the finding of the referee on that point could be sustained. Spencer purchased the note of Garrison with the checks of these plaintiffs; but the plaintiffs affirmed the trade, and took the note, and have possession of it, and the money paid by Spencer -for it, was their money.

¶2From these facts, if Garrison could give a good title to the note, I think the referee might find the title in the plaintiffs, and that his finding on that point cannot be disturbed.' They, had all the title Garrison had, at least, and that is sufficient to maintain the action, if the defendant had no defense to it, as against Garrison.

¶3The defendant clearly made out a good defense; to the note, as against the original payee, Van Allen; but, according to the present tenor of the cases, I think he made out no defense, as against Garrison.

¶4The referee finds that Garrison received this note of Van Allen before the maturity of the note; that Van Allen sold and delivered it to him, and received therefor $100 in cash and his own note for $100 principal, and upon his giving a note for the interest accruing on his note then surrendered; and that Garrison took the note in good faith, without notice of the facts, &c. This brings the case within the cases of Stettheimer v. Meyer, (33 Barb. 216,) and Brown, executor, &c. v. Leavitt, (31 N. Y. Rep. 113,) and within the principle decided in Young v. Lee, (2 Kern. 554.)

¶5It is too late, after these cases in the Court of Appeals, to hold that the equities of the party who takes negotiable paper before maturity, in good faith, and pays for it, or pays part of the consideration therefor, by the surrender and extinguishment of the note, or other security, for a debt due to him from the assignor or previous holder of *208the paper transferred, are not superior to those of the original maker or indorser of such paper.

[Monroe General Term,March 2, 1868.

¶6E. D. Smith, Johnson and J. G. Smith, Justices.]

¶7Garrison here paid $100 in cash, and gave up and surrendered the note of Van Allen for $100 besides. This made him a bona fide holder of the note in suit, and the judgment must, therefore, he affirmed.

¶8Judgment affirmed.

/51/barb/203 · .json · Public domain