139 N.Y.S. 111 | N.Y. App. Term. | 1912
The plaintiff sues upon a note made by defendant to plaintiff’s order. The answer sets forth as a defense that the note was made for the accommodation of the plaintiff, and that no value or consideration for the making of the note passed to the defendant.
“it is universally conceded that the holder oí an accommodation note, without restriction as to the mode oí using it, may transfer it, either in payment or as collateral security for an antecedent debt, and the maker will have no defense. The existing debt is a sufficient consideration for the transfer, and no new'consideration need be shown.”
See, also, Lehrenkrauss v. Bonnell, 199 N. Y. 240, 92 N. E. 637, where the court stated:
“A pre-existing debt, without extension or forbearance, is sufficient consideration upon which to hold the accommodation maker of a promissory note, where there has been no restriction placed upon its use.”
It follows that the judgment must be reversed, and a new trial, ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event. All concur. .