Case ID: how-pr_40/html/0048-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Ingraham, P. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

SUPREME COURT.
    Edward B. Bronson agt. The Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railroad Company.
    In an action on a bond payable to bearer, in the possession of the plaintiff, an answer denying any knowledge or information, sufficient to form a-belief that the plaintiff is or is not the owner and holder thereof, is frivolous.
    Allegations that the defendant was at the maturity of such bond, ignorant who was the owner thereof, but was ready and willing to pay the same at the place of payment named therein, set up no defense, without a tender, and bringing the money into court.
    
      New York Special Term, September, 1870.
    Motion for judgment on the answer as frivolous.
    The complaint alleged that the defendant, as the successor of the Chicago and Rock Island Railroad Company assumed the payment of a bond issued by the latter, dated January 10th, 1852, and payable July 10th, 1870, that the plaintiff was the owner and holder thereof, and had demanded payment in gold which the defendant refused..
    The answer denied—1st. Delivery to the plaintiff—2d. Any knowlege or information sufficient to form a belief that the plaintiff was or was not the owner, and holder thereof— 3d. Presentment and demand of payment—4th. That there was due on said bond to the plaintiff one thousand dollars in gold. It also alleged that the defendant was, whan the bond became due, ignorant who held it, but was ready and willing, -when and where it was due and payable, to pay it in United States notes, and that the plaintiff accepted payment in United States notes of the interest coupon due at the same time with the bond, and thereby consented to the election of the defendant to pay both bond and coupon in such notes.
    Samuel Huntington, for the motion.
    
    Cited, Smith agt. Mead, 14 Abb., 262; Flammer agt. Kline, 9 How., 215; Seeley agt. Engell, 17 Barb., 530; James agt. Chalmers, 2 Seld., 209; Hepburn agt. Griswold, 8 How. U. S., 603; Drake agt. Cockroft, 4 E. D., Smith 34; Wolcott agt. Van Sanvord, 17 John., 248; Livingston agt. Harrison, 2 E. D. Smith, 197; 2 Parsons on Notes and Bills, 624.
    Charles Tracy, opposed,
    
    Claimed to distinguish the case from Catlin agt. Gunter, 1 Duer, 253 ; Higgins agt. Rockwell, 2 Duer, 653; De Santes agt. Searle, 11 How., 477; Plant agt. Schuyler, 7 Robt., 271; Fleuret agt. Roget, 5 Sandf., 646, and Fosdick agt. Groff, 22 How., 158. He also cited Chadwick agt. Booth, 22 How., 23; S. C. 13 Abb., 249; and Smith agt. Mead, 14 Abb., 253.
   Ingraham, P. J.

The answer does not set up any valid defense. So far as relates to willingness to pay in currency, it is no defense without a tender, and bringing the money into court. The other points have been decided in other cases referred to.

Motion granted, with $10 costs.