The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1859-09-23
supreme court-Gsn.ral Term.


Sur 22-The Mechanics Bank Of Brooklyn rs. s r.
7b~s.swd --Roosxvar, J.-fhc defendant Townsend, 10
sued M maker on two promssory notes. His defcncs 10
that the notes were issued by him usurons eofdesa
ton and are therefore void the hands OF bona
fde holder who may have discounted them at the lawns
rate Of seven per cent To meet this objection the plain
tits the trial. introduced in evidence two certificates
signed by the defendant and which the jury in effect,
have found TO have been given by him to accompany the
notes and to have been designed TO represent that the
notes were vakd (when, in fact, and to his know
ledge they were nvalid), tina, subsequent parties
should take the notes the faith Of the certificates II
should be added too that the verdict in effect establishes
the further fact that the plaintiffs discounted the
the iaitn q inc oeruncates, giving full value under
circumstances Tree from suspicion, aud without any de-
sign their part TO evado the statute and without rcasoa
for suspcc,ng such design in others Such certificate
acted good fah IL has been repeatedly held one
rates to esop the party giving i from fasfyng his own
statements No man, as against an innocent person can
take advantage OF his own fraud So far from being in
such case, defence, the fraud would itself, any loss
were sustained, be positive Of action onting this
injured party to equivalent damages s lsee the cases Of
vs. McIaren, 10 Wcnd., 557 Dove VS. Schuu, 2 DEMO,
62I Clark VS., sisson, Duer, 4oS Tuscou VS. Davis,
Barb, 1867 All these cases are cited by Mr.. Justice
ngraham at special term in decision against the same
defendant reported recently In 20 Barb, 81. Much
stress laid by counsel on the peculiar form Of these GER
said, is the purport of the notes themselves, were
given for value received and will be paid when due
nothing further meant by the certificates why attach
them to the notes The act would have been chidIsA
ceremony We must infer that meant something The
Jury have found effect and think correctly found,
that the defendant to convey the idea not only that
some value but that full legal value had been received
and that the promise to pay was no. merely an optional
promise but one which could be legally enforced. In
other words the object the certificates said by Judge
Ingrabam was s'to induce purchaser TO take the notes
without fear Of the defence Of usury And it is not com
petcnt the defendant to argue that the terms
ccscd ugcniousy contrived as trap to catch tho
unwary. Judgment appealed from affirmed with costs
Bossdnge u.s. Ross and Fitzgerald --RoosEvELr, 1.-The
note sued although purporng as usual on its face 70
be for value received was in fact accommodation paper
And the question such paper be bought bona dc for
gross sum, but which calculation gives, and is
known to give than per cent, can recovery
be had for the amount actually paid with lawful interest
against all the parties to the note whore there has
been fraud false representation by certificate
otherwise On the trial the counsel for the defendants
excepted to that portion of the charge of the Judge
which he stated that if the plaintiff bought the note
question for 5000 ts face being $500 though
accommodation note he could recover from the drawer
endorser the amount actually paid with interest"
Judgment reversed and trial ordered-costs to abide