*1 579 Farmers’ Bank Maxwell. June, of case. Statement Saratoga v. The Farmers’ Bank Appellant, Co., Joshua

Maxwell. negotiable given A note and to a promissory payable absolutely upon face, negotiated mutual insurance such company, may usual and course business. Where can issue either on the company, by mutual policies cash such notes on plan, may receive, time. policies, promissory negotiated Where the has such note the usual course business, title thereto is vested and absolutely indorsee; any subsequent arrangement which the make with the maker of company may such note in to -its knowledge assent or respect payment of the indorsee rights, affect rights will not or the of a thereof, 6ona holder of the same.

This action was as brought by holder plaintiff, aof owner note made defendant, follows : “ $300. Buffalo, November 1853. 30,

“ One from date I year promise James bToxon,Esq., three hundred Secretary, order, dollars, value received, at Attica Buffalo. Bank, “ J. MAXWELL. “ Jas. (Indorsed) ÜSToxon, Sec’y.” claimed to be owner and holder of the discounted the and as having same, such the com- demanded The defense plaint judgment. was general denial, also that the note was for the for insur- ance for $5,000 steamboat her G-lobe, tackle, &c., insurance was which the Hudson Biver granted by Fire and Insurance Marine that said Company, at the company, time of such insurance, that it granting represented awas solvent it was responsible when, truth, insol- vent at the and on the 15th time, afterwards, April, the note had been transferred to the plaintiff, at the defendant, of the insurance request sur- rendered to surrender up policy, company agreed satisfied, canceled Mm, TMs up in suit. y. of App’ls, [Ct. Farmers’ Baste Maxwell.

Arguments Appellant. *2 the the defense as in the and was set up answer, pleadings were not amended. the

The who tried cause with a a mat- judge jury, found, the ter of that on of its date the fact, defendant made the note consideration of a of insurance issued the insurance that James by company mentioned; was the and that note bToxon the the secretary was indorsed the him, expiration year was plaintiff, proceeds placed of bToxonas that the a bank- the credit is secretary; that the insurance was incorporation; organ- ing the act ized and under that James 1849; incorporated an bToxon account bank as kept plaintiff’s secretary, Alfred a director in and that his was said bank, brother, of said and also bank, vice-president bToxon, president and that the executive officers of the insurance company, that at the time said note, knew, bank discounting it said insurance note, insurance that said and knew organ- such, 1849. the act of under ized he that was not trans- law found the note As conclusions the insurance nor bToxon, secretary, ferable by he holder, was not bona and the with dismissed, costs, judgment ordered complaint in fourth district, a' Term plain- at General was affirmed to this court. tiff appeals A. Beach,

William appellant. is not the note suit transferable The I. proposition as it is an insurance idea that is upon founded availa for losses was assessment prerequisite an note, not affect the that would that be conceded, Should bility. take The would then indorsee paper. negotiability 6 Bank v. Bosw., to that Vail, necessity. (Marine subject 6 Abb., Eaton Nelson v. Appeals], 113.) 421; [Court affect the of assessment cannot transfer- 1. question terms. paper negotiable by ability ffom an derived assessment must be 2. necessity June, Bank Fabmebs’ v. Maxwell. Court, per

the terms of from law under which was obtained. It does not follow from the circum- that it an stance note for was. insurance It is premium. inherent—natural necessity instrument. This is payable absolutely there unconditionally; is the note therefore, nothing, assessment requiring preliminary payment.

3. There the charter to that effect. nothing 4. The under law which this organized, no assessment, for contains no required provision *3 Act of subject. (See 1849.)

II. This receive cash lieu of a company might premium note; where cash be received lieu of a may an absolute is to it promise likewise receivable. The insured may give, may company receive, check for a certificate of cash; or or, of deposit; by parity a bank note. reasoning, negotiable

III. The circumstance that the note was to an payable officer of not limit does its company, It negotiability. the indorsement of the in his official negotiable by payee character.

IY. it is immaterial whether or Hence, not awas bona holder this Hot liable to paper. being a either because this was assessment, company .stock could collect the form the without because it, promise with that with or holder, dispensed formality, any of all the could recover. And circumstances, notice like- so, if the note and received as under the wise, cash, was given the charter. special provisions for

John H. Reynolds, respondent. on J. The its day given date, Campbell, Hovember to 30, the insurance consider- 1853, ation of a of insurance that issued. The note is policy day on a conditional but is terms, payable, absolutely, an certain and at a fixed It is day ordinary place. far it have

noté, so as on its been and, face, may appears given a loaned for as well for as money App’ls, [Ct. Bake Fabhees’ Maxwell. Court, per On 31st December this note issued. following for the insurance discounted by the usual course of business, money of the note credit the company, proceeds placed a had I do not which account with plaintiff. regular is was what think there this note any pretense saying It a note is called note. is technically all claimed in the is and this is that is true, premium, its terms. answer. But is a note absolute in defendant’s could issue company, by policies sys- tem of cash well as incorporated capital companies, mutual Its charter policies upon plan. provided issuing For thus be cash money paid, promissory system. what time taken. It could not be note on could certainly is an the funds of the under called investment of the 8th of the law of 1849. The 21st section section act of this unite cash 1849 authorized capital additional I extent, security, section, any in the charter the insurance warranted think, provision There this note to whom given. certainly in the insurance laws of other any general nothing a mutual insurance which act, prevents company taking *4 the one for members, note from absolute unquali- the amount of his if fied premium insurance, payment it in that defendant the to . This insured way. willing give that he to and would was has said by willing pay the to fact whether or in event, any regard When the had losses. sustained not the company company not am to could a note I unable see trans- why held such they the debts to the to payments it, proceeds fer apply the necessities of to the wants or meet any investment. It was .but in better shape their funds put On trial note. the the an ordinary negotiable the that in March, 1854, secretary offered show defendant him that the note and with insurance company agreed of the of the the premium canceled upon payment should be policy earned was of such and which then earned, portion which had been the defendant loss to be upon applied q. June, Faehebs’ Bauk Ellis. Court, per in the that thereof the by pursuance

adjusted canceled and the note have been was to returned. excluded. had been This evidence was The note months the several before this settlement plaintiff alleged by un- took could not be affected place, plaintiff less party arrangement.

I am of that should have been dis- opinion complaint on was entitled to but the facts missed, j udg- proved Court should and that the Supreme ment, judgment be. to abide the event. trial with costs ordered, and new reversed, Anson D. Ellis. Same .the Max* addition to this case, findings judge had defendant the note been paid by found Gase, well’s before the transfer insurance and canceled thereof plaintiff. the insiu’ance Wasindebted that

The answer sets up losses on the 13th he member, firm of which and the on the defendant and that 1851-, of April, the note controversy, settled adjusted to defendant. offer, to surrender agreed this in March, to show settlement which was excluded, defendant read the the trial evidence 1851. On taken under a Noxon, cashier, James stipula- plaintiff’s note was dis- EToxon’s testimony tion, proving December;, three 31st counted by settlement. alleged months this case The note negotiable promis- all at fixed time and and in place, note,. payable sory made like the note Maxwell, payable .respects and was for the of the secretary, order vessel or defendant’s propeller. insurance also reversed. This should judgment *5 L. Samuel Watson. Same inas the same Ellis’ Gase. are substantially The facts the note had been after drawn accepted draft was by plaintiff.