Radin v. Creran, 19.

• Decision Date: 03 February 1930
• Docket Number: No. 19.,19.
• Citation: 148 A. 735
• Parties: RADIN v. CRERAN.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

148 A. 735

RADIN

v. CRERAN.

No. 19.

Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey.

Feb. 3, 1930.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Appeal from Circuit Court, Essex County.

Action by Louis R. Radin against John J. Creran. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

David Bobker and Louis Klatzko, both of Newark, for appellant.

Joseph A. Fuerstman and Maxwell M. Albach, both of Newark, for respondent.

BLACK, J. This suit was brought to recover the amount due on a promissory note, dated August 3, 1926, for $1,476.23. The original note dated April 30, 1925, was for $2,500, which had been reduced by subsequent payment and renewals to the amount sued for. The suit was brought against the defendant as indorser. The trial resulted in a verdict for the defendant. This is the second trial of the case with verdicts in favor of the defendant. The plaintiff appeals and files five grounds of appeal: First, error by the trial court in submitting to the jury the receipt of notice of protest by the defendant. Second, so, the alleged misrepresentations in connection with the note sued on. Third, so, the notary's diligence to ascertain defendant's address. Fourth, error in refusing to direct a verdict in favor of the plaintiff. Fifth, failure by the jury to answer four questions propounded in the charge by the trial judge to the jury. This it is alleged was improper. The first four grounds of appeal involve questions of fact, which we think were properly submitted to the jury to determine under the evidence. The fifth ground is in the charge by the trial judge, alleged as error, he said: "Certain questions will be put to you which you will answer, if you please, and they have to do with the protest and with the diligence of the notary, and also with the 'misrepresentations.'" The jury found a general verdict against the plaintiff. No exception was taken to the court's charge in this respect. The counsel in his brief cites no cases, as authority, for holding this to be error. There is no merit in the point. It may not be amiss, however, to revert somewhat more fully to the real crux of the case, viz., the notice of protest and the notary's diligence to ascertain the defendant's address. The facts in the record relating to these points are as follows: The defendant was an accommodation indorser. The note originally given was for the purchase of a garage. The note sued on was the fifth renewal. The defendant John' J. Creran was an officer and director of Morton & Co. Morton & Co. had an account with the Broad & Market National Bank at Newark, N. J. The Broad & Market National Bank had a card containing the names of Morton & Co., John J. Creran, and J. J. Creran, the defendant, with the address 828 Broad street, Newark, N. J. The letter containing the notice of protest by the notary was mailed to that address. It was never returned to the notary, who sent it out. It is alleged the defendant never received the notice. For some months prior thereto, the defendant resided in Dover street, Newark, N. J. The only office maintained by him was as a member of the firm of Morton & Co. at No. 723 Broad street, Newark, N. J. This fact seemed to be well known to the plaintiff, who testified, "Every one in Newark knows where Morton & Co. is." Morton & Co. moved out from No. 828 Broad street to No. 723 Broad street, Newark, N. J., a block and a half down Broad street on May 1, 1925. The original note was dated April 30, 1925. The note in suit was protested ...