78 N.Y. 371, Hook v. Pratt

Citation78 N.Y. 371
Party NameMARY P. HOOK as Trustee, Respondent, v. DANIEL PRATT et al. as Executors, etc., Appellants.
Case DateOctober 14, 1879
CourtNew York Court of Appeals

Page 371

78 N.Y. 371

MARY P. HOOK as Trustee, Respondent,

v.

DANIEL PRATT et al. as Executors, etc., Appellants.

New York Court of Appeal

October 14, 1879

Argued Sept. 28, 1879.

Page 372

COUNSEL

Daniel Pratt, for appellants. Every absolute indorsement of a bill of exchange imports a consideration from the indorsee to the indorser; but in order that this quality should attend the instrument it should be for the payment of money only, absolutely and at all events. (3 Kent Com., 74; 1 Daniel on Bills, 2; Chitty on Bills, 152, 154, 157, 218, 219; Story on Prom. Notes, § 128; Dean v. Hall, 17 Wend., 221; Overton v. Tyler, 3 Penn., 346.) A bill of exchange, in case of a restrictive indorsement, ceases to be further negotiable, imports no consideration from the indorsee to the indorser, nor does it imply any promise to pay. (Daniel on Bills, 515; Edwards on Bill, 69; Byle on Bills, 208; Ross on Bills, 279; Story on Bills, § § 111, 112; Bayley on Bills, 107; Chitty on Bills, 258, 259; 3 Kent, 92; Power v. Finnie, 4 Call, 411; Wilson v. Holmes, 5 Mass., 543; Sigourney v. Loyd, 8 B. & C., 622; Truettel v. Barandan, 8 Taunt., 100; Anchor v. Bk. of England, Doug., 637; Blaine v. Baum, 11 Rhode I. R.; Edie v. East India Co., 1216, 1227; Halliday v. Atkinson et al., 5 B. & C., 501; Sweeney v. Easler, 1 Wal., 166;

Page 373

Avertts' Adm. v. Hooker, 15 Grattan; 163; Brown v. Jackson, 1 Wash. C. C. R., 512; 1 Atkyns, 247.) The indorsement of the note in suit is restrictive. (Edie v. East India Co., 2 Burr., 1227; Daniel on Bills, 127; 3 Kent's Com., 92; 3 Mass., 228; Chitty on Bills, 220; Avertts v. Hooker, 15 Grat., 170; Halliday v. Atkinson, 5 B. & C., 501; Wait v. Day, 4 Den., 439; Moncrief v. Ely, 19 Wend., 405.) If the draft in suit be deemed given in consideration of past illicit cohabitation it is void. (Parson on Cont. [ 4th ed.], 361; 1 Story on Cont., § 543; Beaumont v. Reeve, 8 B. & C. [ N. S.], 483; Eastwood v. Kenyon, 11 A. & E., 438.) It was also void as a promise to provide for the future support of the child. (Moncrief v. Ely, 19 Wend., 405; Birdsall v. Edgerton, 25 Id., 619; 1 Car. & P., 268; Reeves' Dom. Rel., 277; 2 Kent, 216.) As a gift or donation it was void for the want of a consideration. (Harris v. Clark, 3 Com., 93; Fink v. Cox, 18 J. R., 145; Phelps v. Phelps, 28 B., 121; Halliday v. Atkinson, 5 B. & C., 501.)

Irving G. Vann, for respondent. The bill in suit being negotiable on its face a consideration was implied, and it was not necessary for the holder to allege or prove any consideration. (Edwards on Bills and Prom. Notes, 165; U.S. v. White, 2 Hill, 59; Warren v. Lynch, 5 J. R., 239; Central Bk. Brooklyn v. Lang, 1 Bosw., 202; Plets v. Johnson, 3 Hill, 112; Bayley on Bills, 67; Edwards on Bills, 166; 1 R. S., 768, § 8; Smith v. Gardner, 4 Bosw., 54; Bigelow v. Colton, 13 Gray, 309; Bush v. Seaton, 4 Ind., 522; Bank of Orleans v. Barry, 1 Den., 118; Bank of Troy v. Topping, 13 Wend., 557; Lines v. Smith, 4 Fa., 47; Jerome v. Whitney, 7 J. R., 321; 1 Parsons on Bills, 227; 1 Daniels on Neg. Inst., 161.) The bill and the indorsement read together express a consideration. (Bayley on Bills, 40; Chitty on Bills, 182, 183; Thompson on Bills, 86-101; Story on Bills, § § 49-181; 3 Kent, 77; Jerome v. Whitney, 7 J. R., 321; Van Stapharst v. Pearce, 4 Mass., 258; Heylyn v. Adamson, 12 Burr., 669; Parsons on Bills and Prom. Notes, 266.) The

Page 374

fact that the note was given to the mother of an illegitimate child, by its putative father, for its support, was a sufficient consideration. (Hicks v. Gregory, 8 C. B., 378; Smith v. Roche, 6 Id. [N. S.], 223; Haskett v. Gowing, 5 Esp., 131; In re Plaskett, 37 L. J. Chan., 606; Cameron v. Baker, 1 C. & P., 268; Nichols v. Allen, 3 Id., 36; Jennings v. Brown, 9 Mees. & Welsby, 496; Linegar v. Hood, 17 Law Jour. [ Com. P.]; Bunn v. Winthrop, 1 J. Ch., 329; Knolman v. Bluett, 9 L. R. [ Exch.], 1; Magee v. Farnel, 5 W. & L., 579; Furrilio v. Crowther, 7 Dow. & R., 612; Wiggins v. Keezer, 6 Ind., 254; Limeegar v. Hood, 5 C. D., 437; Moncriff v. Ely, 9 Wend., 405.)

OPINION

RAPALLO, J.

The point mainly relied upon by the appellant is that...

To continue reading

Request your trial
34 practice notes
  • 147 Cal. 166, S. F. 3050, Meyer v. Foster
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court of California
    • June 19, 1905
    ...McDonald, 124 Cal. 682, 687, 57 P. 574; Rigby v. Lowe, 125 Cal. 613, 58 P. 153; Brown v. Curtis, 128 Cal. 193, 60 P. 773; Hook v. Pratt, 78 N.Y. 374; 1 White v. National Bank, 102 U.S. 688, 662; Mechem on Agency, secs. 383, 406; Smith v. Johnson, 71 Mo. 382; Fuller v. Bennett, 55 Mich. 357,......
  • 127 S.E. 403 (W.Va. 1925), 5169, Sponaugle v. Warner
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia
    • March 24, 1925
    ...679, 1 S.Ct. 456, 27 L.Ed. 256; Bunn v. Winthrop, 1 Johns Ch. 329; Barnett v. Greathouse, 77 W.Va. 514, 88 S.E. 1013. In Hook v. Pratt, 78 N.Y. 376, 34 Am.Rep. 539, the court held: "There is nothing illegal in an undertaking by a putative father to support his illegitimate child, or to......
  • 123 A.2d 316 (Md. 1956), 188, Fiege v. Boehm
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals of Maryland
    • June 18, 1956
    ...for the injury he inflicted upon the mother, does not lessen the merit of the contract, but greatly increases it. Hook v. Pratt, 78 N.Y. 371, 34 Am.Rep. 539; Hays v. McFarlan, 32 Ga. 699, 79 Am.Dec. 317. A case in point is Pflaum v. McClintock, 130 Pa. 369, 18 A. 734. That was an action to ......
  • 118 N.Y. 443, Corn Exch. Bank v. Farmers' Nat. Bank
    • United States
    • New York New York Court of Appeals
    • February 25, 1890
    ...check. (Daniels on Neg. Inst., § § 698, 699; White v. Nat. Bank, 102 U.S. 658; Sigourney v. Lloyd, 8 Barn. & C. 622; Hook v. Pratt, 78 N.Y. 371.) The purpose of the suggestion that the defendant charged the plaintiff $1.84 for the draft is not apparent. Page 454 If, however, it was made......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
34 cases
  • 147 Cal. 166, S. F. 3050, Meyer v. Foster
    • United States
    • California Supreme Court of California
    • June 19, 1905
    ...McDonald, 124 Cal. 682, 687, 57 P. 574; Rigby v. Lowe, 125 Cal. 613, 58 P. 153; Brown v. Curtis, 128 Cal. 193, 60 P. 773; Hook v. Pratt, 78 N.Y. 374; 1 White v. National Bank, 102 U.S. 688, 662; Mechem on Agency, secs. 383, 406; Smith v. Johnson, 71 Mo. 382; Fuller v. Bennett, 55 Mich. 357,......
  • 127 S.E. 403 (W.Va. 1925), 5169, Sponaugle v. Warner
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia
    • March 24, 1925
    ...679, 1 S.Ct. 456, 27 L.Ed. 256; Bunn v. Winthrop, 1 Johns Ch. 329; Barnett v. Greathouse, 77 W.Va. 514, 88 S.E. 1013. In Hook v. Pratt, 78 N.Y. 376, 34 Am.Rep. 539, the court held: "There is nothing illegal in an undertaking by a putative father to support his illegitimate child, or to......
  • 123 A.2d 316 (Md. 1956), 188, Fiege v. Boehm
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals of Maryland
    • June 18, 1956
    ...for the injury he inflicted upon the mother, does not lessen the merit of the contract, but greatly increases it. Hook v. Pratt, 78 N.Y. 371, 34 Am.Rep. 539; Hays v. McFarlan, 32 Ga. 699, 79 Am.Dec. 317. A case in point is Pflaum v. McClintock, 130 Pa. 369, 18 A. 734. That was an action to ......
  • 118 N.Y. 443, Corn Exch. Bank v. Farmers' Nat. Bank
    • United States
    • New York New York Court of Appeals
    • February 25, 1890
    ...check. (Daniels on Neg. Inst., § § 698, 699; White v. Nat. Bank, 102 U.S. 658; Sigourney v. Lloyd, 8 Barn. & C. 622; Hook v. Pratt, 78 N.Y. 371.) The purpose of the suggestion that the defendant charged the plaintiff $1.84 for the draft is not apparent. Page 454 If, however, it was made......
  • Request a trial to view additional results