Mechanics' Banking Ass'n v. New York & Saugerties White Lead Co.
The Mechanics’ Banking Association, Respondent, v. the New York and Saugerties White Lead Company, Appellant
Headnotes
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion of the Court
Pobteb, J.
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.
Leomabd, J., also read an opinion to the same effect.
All the judges concurring, Judgment affirmed.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 15 cases
View all citing references →- U.S. Courts of Appeals4
- Federal District Courts1
- Historical Federal Courts2
- State Highest Courts3
- State Appellate Courts1
- State Trial Courts4
Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.