Case ID: misc_37/html/0164-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Gaynob, J.:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

George Harvey, Plaintiff, v. George L. Ayres, Defendant.
    (Supreme Court, Kings Trial Term,
    February, 1902.)
    Consideration. — Not afforded by doing what one is legally bound to do.
    Promissory notes, endorsed upon the insistence of an owner of land, who had previously agreed to convey it to the purchaser for his notes, are not enforcible against one who endorsed them merely to prevent the sale from failing, as the owner’s delivery of the deed affords no consideration for the endorsement and this because the owner was legally bound to convey to the purchaser upon tender of his notes unendorsed.
    • Action to recover of the defendant as endorser of two notes for $500 each. The plaintiff made a written contract to convey his house and lot to one Hutchings on a. day therein named. It was agreed' therein that $1,000 of the purchase price should be paid by the said purchaser giving his two promissory notes for $500 each to the plaintiff. On the contract day the said notes were tendered, but the plaintiff refused to accept them and deliver the deed of conveyance unless the said purchaser should get a responsible endorser on the said notes. The defendant, who was the broker who negotiated the sale, and was present and participating in the business, thereupon endorsed the same and the deed was delivered. The defendant testified that to induce him to endorse the plaintiff told him that he would not hold him responsible on his endorsement. This was denied and the case was submitted to the jury on the single question of fact thus presented, and a verdict was rendered for the plaintiff. The parties stipulated, however, before the submission to the jury that the court should reserve the question of law, and set aside the verdict and direct a verdict the other way, if it should think fit.
    George G. Reynolds for plaintiff.
    W. B. Kissam for defendant.
   Gaynob, J.:

I regret that the learned counsel for the defendant has neglected to furnish a brief as he was requested to do, but has left the court without the aid of any research as on the trial. There was no consideration for the contract of endorsement. The plaintiff was under legal obligation to deliver the deed of conveyance on the tender of the two notes as made by the purchaser. The performance of that obligation could not constitute a consideration for the new contract, i. e., the defendant’s contract of endorsement (Arend v. Smith, 151 N. Y. 502).

The verdict is set aside and a verdict directed for the defendant.