29 Barb. 569 | N.Y. Sup. Ct. | 1859
The defendant Townsend is sued as maker, on two promissory notes. His defense is, that the notes were issued by him on a usurious consideration, and
Such a certificate, acted on in good faith, it has been repeatedly held, operates to estop the party giving it from falsifying his own statements. No man, as against an innocent person, can take advantage of his own fraud. So far from being, in such case, a defense, the fraud would itself, if any loss were sustained, be a positive cause of action entitling the injured party to equivalent damages. (See the cases of Holmes v. Williams, 10 Paige, 326; Watson’s Ex’rs v. McLaren, 19 Wend. 557; Dowe v. Schutt, 2 Denio, 621; Clark v. Sisson, 4 Huer, 408 ; Truscott v. Davis, 4 Barb. 495.)
All these cases are cited by Mr. Jus tice Ingraham at special term, in a decision against the same defendant, reported recently in 26 Barb. 611.
Much stress is laid, by counsel, on the peculiar form of these certificates. They merely declare that the notes—and such, it is said, is the purport of the notes themselves—“ were given for value received, and will be paid when due.” If nothing further was meant by the certificates, why attach them to the notes ? The act would have been a childish ceremony. We must infer that it meant something. The jury have found, in effect, and we think correctly found, that the defendant meant to convey the idea not only that some value, but that full le
Roosevelt, Ingraham and Pratt, Justices.]
Judgment appealed from affirmed with costs.