¶1I concur in the above conclusion. The case referred to by the plaintiffs’ counsel (McBride v. The Farmers' Bank of Salem, 25 Barb. 657; 26 N. Y. Rep. 650) does not support his position. It was there held that, to justify the receiving bank in retaining the proceeds of *236the notes, a credit must have been given on the strength of the particular notes of their proceeds. In the case before us this is precisely what was done by the defendants, in respect to the note in question. They gave credit for it to Van Saun & Son, from whom they received it.
54 Barb. 230
Dickerson v. Wason
Decided June 7, 1869
New York Supreme Court · decided 1869-06-07
OK the 21st July, 1863, the plaintiffs were the owners of a promissory note, made by R P. Myers of Cleveland, for $316.45, payable to the order of L. A. Carmer, and by him indorsed in blank. This note matured August 27, 1863. On the 21st July the plaintiffs indorsed the note and deposited it with Van Saun & Son, in Kew York city, for collection.
Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently April 1871
1 state decisions
Relies on McBride v. Farmers' Bank
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1869-06-07
View the full empirical analysis of this case →