Case ID: ad_35/html/0043-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Herrick, J.:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Philip Donohoe, Plaintiff, v. James Meeker and Others, Defendants; George Campbell and John Clute, Constituting and Comprising the Firm of Campbell & Clute, Appellants; Stephen C. Bull and Frank F. Follet, Respondents.
    (Nos. 1 and 2.)
    
      Promissory note given by a corporation—its invalidity is no defense to an indorser thereof
    
    An indorser of a promissory note guarantees its validity as well as its payment; and the fact that a note purporting to he given hy a corporation was invalid and not binding upon the corporation is not a defense to the indorser thereof.
    Appeal by the defendants, George Campbell and John Clute, constituting and comprising the firm of Campbell & Clute, from orders of the Supreme Court, made at the Albany Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Saratoga on the 28th day of September, 1897, confirming the reports of a referee appointed in surplus money proceedings, had in each of the above-entitled actions, overruling their exceptions to said reports and directing the payment of such surplus money to the respondents.
    
      Charles F. Doyle, for the appellants.
    
      James W. Atkinson, for the respondents.
   Herrick, J.:

I think the judgments against James Meeker, in satisfaction of which the surplus arising from the proceeds of the foreclosure action were paid, were legal and valid judgments.

Assuming that the notes given by the Meeker, Spotten & Meeker Company were invalid and not binding upon the corporation, still, it seems to me that Meeker was bound, under his indorsement of the notes issued by the corporation in exchange for the notes of Meeker, Spotten & Meeker, upon which notes the judgment debtor, James Meeker, was liable.

The notes issued by the corporation were given for his benefit, and when he thereafter indorsed them he was estopped from asserting their invalidity or denying his liability thereon as an indorser; by his indorsement he guaranteed the validity of those notes as well as their payment. (Shaw v. Outwater, 77 Hun, 87, and cases cited; Delaware Bank v. Jarvis, 20 N. Y. 226; Morford v. Davis, 28 id. 481; Turnbull v. Bowyer, 40 id. 456; White v. Continental National Bank, 64 id. 316.)

And he would have no defense to actions brought against him as an indorser upon such notes, and the judgments recovered thereon are legal and valid judgments.

The orders appealed from should be affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

All concurred.

Orders appealed from affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.