History
  • No items yet
midpage
Mechanics' Banking Ass'n v. New York & Saugerties White Lead Co.
35 N.Y. 505
| NY | 1866
|
Check Treatment

There was nothing on the face of the note to indicate that it was not business paper. The appellant was the payee, and the indorsement was made by the proper officer, and in the usual form. The respondent discounted the note in good faith, and in the usual course of business. The bank had no notice that it was made or indorsed for the accommodation of the borrower, and the defense was, therefore, properly overruled. (Bank of Genesee v.Patchin Bank, 13 N.Y., 315; 19 id., 312; Farmers' Mechanics'Bank v. Butchers' Drovers' Bank, 16 id., 129; Olcott v.Tioga Railroad Company, 27 id., 546; Bank of New York v.Muskingum Branch Bank, 29 id., 619.)

The judgment should be affirmed.

LEONARD, J., also read an opinion to the same effect.

All the judges concurring,

Judgment affirmed. *Page 507

Case Details

Case Name: Mechanics' Banking Ass'n v. New York & Saugerties White Lead Co.
Court Name: New York Court of Appeals
Date Published: Sep 5, 1866
Citation: 35 N.Y. 505
Court Abbreviation: NY
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.