Case ID: ad_2/html/0513-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Williams, J. :", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

William F. Lennon, Respondent, v. J. George Grauer, Appellant.
    
      Sills and notes—an indorser warrants that the note and its prior indorsements a/re genuine.
    
    In an action upon a promissory note the third indorser offered to prove, .as against a bona fide holder for value, that the note was never made nor delivered by the maker.
    
      Held, that the evidence was inadmissible;
    That the indorsement of the note amounted to a warranty by the indorser, running to all subsequent holders, that the paper itself and all its antecedent indorsements were genuine.
    
      Appeal by the defendant, J. George Grauer, from a'judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the. plaintiff, entered upon the verdict of a jury rendered by direction of the court, and also from an order denying the defendant’s motion for a new trial made upon the .minutes. (
    
    The action was brought upon a promissory note for $1,200, alleged to have f>een made by Mary Hines, and indorsed by John Graff, M. Gartner, the defendant Grauer,. and the Spencer, Needham Company arid held by the plaintiff.' The action was in form against the maker and all the indorsers, but the trial was had and the verdict was ordered against the defendant Grauer alone.
    Upon the trial the plaintiff gave evidence tending to show that the indorsement of Grauer upon the not-e was in his handwriting. Indeed, his indorsement was hardly denied in his answer. Plaintiff also gave evidence tending to show that he purchased the note of the Spencer, Needham.Conapany, and paid full value for it before its maturity, that it was duly protested when due and notice given to defendant Grauer. The note, was put in évidence, and the plaintiff rested. The defendant Grauer was sworn, but would riot say that the’ indorsement of his name on the note was not in his own handwriting.
    The defendant offered to prove that the note was never given by the alleged maker thereof; but the court held that such proof was immaterial so long as it appeared -that the plaintiff was a bona fide •purchaser of the note before maturity. The defendant stated that he made no requests to go to the jury, and thereupon the court ordered a verdict for the plaintiff. There was no exception to the direction of the verdict, but there was an exception to the denial of the motion for a new trial.
    
      Delos MoOxvrdy, for the appellant.
    
      WilTiam XcArthw,,.for the respondent.
   Williams, J. :

There was evidence tending to show that the defendant Grauer ■indorsed the note, that it was transferred to plaintiff before maturity for full value and without notice to him of any infirmity in the note, and that it was duly protested when.due, and notice given to the defendant. The court found these fact to be true, the defendant not desiring to go to the jury. The only question, therefore, for consideration on this appeal is, whether the fact sought to be proved by the defendant, that the note was never given by the maker, never signed or delivered by her, was material, or would, if proved, have constituted a defense to the action in view of the facts so found by the court. There is no doubt as to the law with reference to this question. In Turnbull v. Bowyer (40 N. Y. 456) it was held that an indorsement of negotiable paper was a warranty in law by the indorser, to the holder in good faith, that the paper itself and all the antecedent indorsements were genuine, and even if they were all shown to be forgeries the indorsers would be liable to the holder for the amount of the paper.

The case was properly disposed of by the trial court, and the judgment and order should be affirmed, with costs.

Van Brunt, P. J., Barrett, Rumsey. and Patterson,' JJ., concurred.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.