The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1854-11-22

Superior Court-Spocial Term.
| nPoRTANT DECISION AS TO THE SALE OF PRO-
AissokY NOTE AFTER 1T BECAME DUE AND SUIT
THEREON COMMENCED.
Nov 2o.-joseph XcArdle against the Mechanics
LVnnAsmg Asscciation, Willidm Wheaton and Eras,us
" 1edfon-Hoflman, Justice.-On the 19th Of March,
1861 William L. Wheaton madc his promissory note in
favor q Erassus Wheaton for s7l2 ut three months
from Sate. The note was duly Endorsed, and dis
counted by the Mechanics Banking Association 1t
protestecfor nonpayment and an action for the re-
covery wts comnenced against maker and endorser.
The plasAh BY hs counsel, Mr.. d. u. Taylor, AYERS
That the q of September 1852 he purchased such
note from tin bank through Mr. Mount their attorney
at pad the sum oi $'J0 thereabous for the same
snreceiyed ssc note from the attorney ana now holds
and swns the csme H. purchased the with hts
MONEY and Tor his own and account. On the 18th
IL Juas 1863 Judgment was entered up against both
and endorser Tor ssy7 y7 Execution was issusf
amountof tse costs. These costs have bsen paid Tho
plantin demands |, his complaint assignment of the
judgmer or such proper Lsf his legal and equitable
rgnts eEt tie linn to ask.
The bssk, through their counsel Mr. r. f. Mount
deny any purchase from themselves, but admit that
person unknown TO them paid the amount of the lDe to
their attorney and received tho from him. and was
informed OF the pendensy OF the action that the desn
ants (the Wheatons) attorney insisted upon bringing
tie action on for trial. which done. and q verdict
rendered They admit that nothing IL due to them They
deny that the Judgment remains in full force
The maker of the note, WiamC. Wheaton, AYERS that
the plaintiff does not the ,ote but that the Is
iaWIuHV oWneu possessed Dy the defendant, Eras
tus Wheaton, the indorser, aud that the plaintiff paid
the amount on his behalf He sets out that T. Wheaton
was largely indebted to him. and claims SGT of such
demands.
The defendant, Erastus Wheaton, makes defence.
Mr. Taylor proves that the note delivered to him
by the plaintiff for tho purpose Of being put in suit in
the latter part OF the summer, in the autumn, Of
1862 and that it has been in his possession since 1t is
now produced on the trial (The signatures are admit
ted He proves, Also that Erastus Wheaton told him
he had never employed the plaintiff to buy up the
This ground Of the defence Of the defendant William E.
Wheaton, wholly fails. Nor has he sustained by evil
dence the allegation OF his having claims against Eras
tus Wheaton, it that would be defence unless
coupled with the fact Of Erastus being the actual
owner. The plaintiff did not take assignment OF the
note from the bank but conented himself with deli
very to him, and this, l apprehend, enough The
subsequent judgment could not affect the right of the
plaintiff, derived in TACT from the bank.
1t may be considered settled, thstandng the
VI the Bank Of Abbott (3 DEMO, 1917, that
judgment against the parties to note may be paid by
endorser and recovery had upon it his behalf against
the maker (Coney White, Barbour s. c., Rep l2),
and in equity, such rule, il s admitted, prevailed (U
aige, 3z.)
Think therefore, that after the bank had parted with
The note to plaintiff, the judgment which 1t obtained
could only be judgment for the benefit Of the plain m
aud that they became his trustee agent in recovering
the same.
There must be judgment in this suit to that effect
and that execution may be out levy the debt
in the of the bank and the amount to be paid
the plaintiff his attorney in this suit Upon that
being done, satisfaction to he entered in this well
in the suit Of the bank