Case ID: nys_66/html/0509-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

FILLER v. GALLANTCHECK.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
    November 7, 1900.)
    Action on Note—Demand.
    An action will not lie against the indorser of a note where there is no evidence of demand on the maker.
    Appeal from municipal court, borough of Manhattan.
    Action by Harris Filler against Barnett Gallantcheek. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.
    Reversed.
    Argued before TRUAX, P. J., and SCOTT and DUGRO, JJ.
    I. Ellis, for appellant.
    L. J. Jacoves, for respondent.
   PER CURIAM.

There was no evidence that there had been a demand for payment of the note upon the maker. The judgment against the appellant is therefore reversed, and a new trial is ordered; costs to abide the event. See Parker v. Stroud, 98 N. Y. 379.