Obrázky stránek
PDF
ePub
[blocks in formation]

Vandegrift Construction

Camden

Vanderveer v. Conover.

U.

Van Duyne v. Vreeland.

Vane v. Newcombe....

Co.

V.

Van Alstyne v. Franklin Council.. 40 Vroom 672..
Van Aken v. Tice......
31 Vroom 377.

Van Cleve v. Passaic Valley Sewer

age Commissioners..

Van Cott v. North Jersey Street
Railway Co.

Van Norman v. Gordon..

Van Reipen v. Jersey City.
Van Riper v. Parsons.
Varney v. Kramer.
Vaughan v. Menlove..
Vetalow v. Perkins..

Virtue v. Freeholders of Essex.
Vreeland v. Vetterlein...

V.

Van Horne v. Newark Passenger

Railway Co.

W. T. Adams Machine Co. v. Inter-
state Building Association.....
Wade v. Donau Brewing Co..
Walcott v. Mount...

Walden v. Finch...

Walp v. Mooar.

Walter v. Town of Union.
Wanser v. Hoos....
Ware v. Rutherford.
Warner v. Hoagland.
Warren v. Liddell...
Warshawsky v. Raritan Traction

127 U. S. 338.

92 U. S. 542.

3 How. (U. S.) 556..
6 Wall. 385.

128 U. S. 673..
5 Wall. 211, 268.

Co.
Water Commissioners v. City of
Hudson

125 U. S. 273.
2 Wall. 525..

42 Vroom 574..

43 Vroom 229.

W.

45 Vroom 669.

1 Harr. 487.

1 Beas. 142.

132 U. S. 220.

3 Dick. Ch. Rep. 332.
172 Mass. 576.

29 Vroom 262.

11 Vroom 1..

33 Vroom 483..
3 Bing. (N. S.) 468.
101 Fed. Rep. 393. .
38 Vroom 139, 144.
4 Vroom 247. 249.

119 Ala. 97..

10 Wash. 284.

7 Vroom 262.
70 Pa. St. 460.
76 Conn. 515.

4 Vroom 350..

31 Vroom 482, 539.

26 Vroom 450.

22 Vroom 63.

110 Ala. 232.

39 Vroom 241.

2 Beas. 420.

408

314

292

330

410

413

408

.400, 433

16

389

369

635

525

100

188

292

585

463

105

629

.6, 626

308 669

96 543

153

152

726

308

101

298

.6. 626

295

381

153

467

434

Weeks v. Freeholders...
Weinberger v. North Jersey Street
Railway Co.

Wells v. Savannah.
Wert v. Strouse...
West Jersey Railroad Co. v. Cam-
den, &c.. Railroad Co......
West Jersey Traction Co. v. Board

of Public Works of Camden.... 27 Vroom 431. Weston v. Pennsylvania Railroad

Co.

White v. Burnley.

Wild v. Paterson..

Woodward v. Emmons.

v. Goutstone. Wooster v. Crane & Co.. Wright v. Carter

v. Carter

39 Vroom 622.

45 Vroom 484.
20 How. 235.

18 Vroom 406.

Wiley v. West Jersey Railroad Co., 15 Vroom 247.
Williams v. Davis...
1 Penn. 259.

2 Penn. 539.

Williamson v. Wright....
Willoughby v. Erie Railroad Co... 48 Vroom 149.
v. Borden.
Wilson v. Edwards.
Winfield v. Bowen.

39 Vroom 627..

Wisheart v. Legro..

Wolcott v. New York and Long

Branch Railroad Co......
Wolfarth v. Sternberg...
Woodruff et al. v. Rochester and
P. R. R. Co......

v. Hart...
v. Remington.

v. Remington.
v. Roseberry.

44 Vroom 694.

181 U. S. 531.

9 Vroom 184.

32 Pa. Sup. Ct. 295.

20 Dick. Ch. Rep. 636.
33 N. H. 177.....

7 Dick. Ch. Rep. 31........ 585

39 Vroom 421

41 Vroom 198.

108 N. Y. 39.

32 Vroom 285.

L. R., 11 App. Cas. 469.

3 Buch. 22.

3 Dutcher 76.

5 Vroom 207..
182 N. Y. 330.
12 Vroom 48.

14 Vroom 451.
121 U. S. 488.

Y.

Yoders v. Township of Amwell... 172 Pa. 477.

Z.

Zolpher v. Camden and Sub. Ry.

Co.

40 Vroom 417.

716

635

75

242

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

CASES DETERMINED

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE

OF THE

STATE OF NEW JERSEY.

JUNE TERM, 1909.

PAUL GERLI v. NATIONAL MILL SUPPLY COMPANY.

Submitted March 9, 1909-Decided June 14, 1909.

The contract embodied in a promissory note, by which an accommodation maker obligates himself to pay a fixed amount of money to the holder, at a specified time. cannot be controlled by oral evidence that, at the time of the delivery of the note by the maker to the holder, it was understood between them that the note was to be paid by a third person for whose accommodation it was drawn, and not by the maker.

On error to Passaic Circuit Court.

Before GUMMERE, CHIEF JUSTICE, and Justices SWAYZE and PARKER.

For the plaintiff in error, Wayne Dumont.

For the defendant in error, Rayton E. Horton.
VOL. XLIX.

1

Gerli v. National Mill Supply Co.

78 N. J. L.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

GUMMERE, CHIEF JUSTICE. This suit is brought to recover the amount due upon a promissory note for $1,045 made by the defendant to its own order, and endorsed by it, and also by the Acme Throwing Company. The case made by the plaintiff at the trial was as follows: The defendant retained possession of the note after its endorsement by the Acme Throwing Company, and sent it by one Rothchild, its secretary, to the mill of the plaintiff, where it was delivered by Rothchild to the plaintiff's cashier, who at the same time gave to Rothchild plaintiff's check for $1,000 in exchange for the note. The defendant deposited this check to its credit in bank, and in due course received the money on it. The note was presented for payment at maturity, and payment thereon was refused. Having proved these facts the plaintiff rested.

The defendant then offered to prove, as a bar to the plaintiff's right to recover, that the note was accommodation paper made by it for the benefit of the Acme Throwing Company; that the Throwing company got the benefit of the cash paid by the plaintiff to the defendant for the note, and that the note was given to the plaintiff upon the understanding between the Throwing company, the defendant and the plaintiff, that it was to be paid to the plaintiff by the Throwing company or its president. All testimony offered by the defendant to prove these facts was excluded by the trial court, and this judicial action is now assigned for error.

The question which this assignment presents is whether the contract embodied in a promissory note, by which an accommodation maker obligates himself to pay a fixed amount of money to the holder at a specified date, can be controlled by oral evidence that at the time of the delivery of the note by the maker to the holder it was understood between them that the note was to be paid by a third person for whose accommodation it was drawn, and not by the maker. This question is not an open one in this state. In the case of Wright v. Remington, 12 Vroom 48, the defendant signed two notes as surety. The defence set up was that she signed the notes at

« PředchozíPokračovat »