Higgins v. Ridgway

• Decision Date: 14 May 1897
• Parties: HIGGINS v. RIDGWAY.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

153 N.Y. 130

47 N.E. 32

HIGGINS

v.RIDGWAY.

Court of Appeals of New York.

May 14, 1897.

Appeal from supreme court, general term, First department.

Action by Francis Higgins, as receiver of the North River Bank, in the city of New York, against James J. Ridgway, on a note. From an order of the general term (35 N. Y. Supp. 944) affirming a judgment in favor of defendant, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Durnin & Yates, for appellant.

Edward F. O'Dwyer, for respondent.

MARTIN, J.

This action was brought by the plaintiff, as receiver of the North River Bank, upon a promissory note, dated October 31, 1890, whereby the defendant promised to pay to the order of himself $14,250 at the North River Bank. The note was indorsed by the defendant and delivered to the president of the bank at which it was payable. The defendant interposed an answer denying that the note was delivered for value, or that there was any amount due thereon. As a further defense he alleged that it was without consideration, made for the accommodation of the bank, and delivered upon an express agreement that the defendant should not be held liable thereon. At the time the note was made, the defendant was a clerk for Paige, Carey & Co. Paige was a director of the bank, and the firm had extensive dealings with it. There was a conflict in the evidence as to what occurred between the parties when the note was delivered, but, as the jury found in favor of the defendant, his version of the transaction must be regarded as correct. He testified that he knew the president and cashier of the bank, and that he had a conversation with the former at the time when the note in suit was given, and also when the original note was made which it was given to renew; that in 1889, when the first note was delivered, the president told him he wanted him to make a note for $15,000; that he asked him what it was for; told him that he was a clerk; was not responsible for 15,000 cents; his note was not good; he could not pay it; that he didn't want to do any such thing; that he then asked the president what it was for, that the latter replied it was for the bank; that he then replied, ‘I don't want to make a note for any purpose, because I am not responsible, and could not pay it, and I don't want to do it;’ to which the president then replied, ‘You will not be responsible for it; you will not be held on the note; you will get nothing for it, and I tell you that you will not be held on the note.’ He further testified that he had another conversation with the president at the time the note in suit was delivered; that he did not want to renew it, and he told the president he did not, to which he replied, ‘You take no risk on it; you are not held on the note; you assume no obligation on that note.’ The defendant also testified that he received no benefit from the note, either from the bank or otherwise. On the trial the plaintiff requested the court to direct a verdict in his favor for the amount of the note, which was denied, and he duly excepted. He also excepted to that portion of the charge which submitted to the jury the question whether the agreements or transactions were as claimed by the defendant, and instructed them that, if they found they...