New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1860-06-11
sCPKRiOR COURT-GHSERAL TnEx-JrSx s-Refbre jus
D. tce- Bo-woRIn. fIpkRrFosT and MoscsIEH
Milton 81 John Andrew Roberta aud Sheldon lay

sUfHRloR COURT-GKsEKAL TnHx-Juss e-Resbro Jus
~. iices Bo-woHIn. fIthhrrosr, 'nd Moscsrsy
Milton 81 John AIT Andrew Roberts aud Sheldon Lay
TlJr d. tan YES b'ougbs asars thu defeidsni Rob
rrts e. TIE r dorser and against the defendant Lay The
800 idorse' Of note made By ole Waterbury to the order
ffe was purchased by plaintiff after maturity
with pcte for 60. held eoiste TO u 80 thu tina Of s
P'ehs', had no's. crhs sc Of fstest attached The
sprssled on The tina. befor Ju.o~ Woodruff tina, Robs,
hid the naker fr vslr- end short time
before M y idored urd sent Lay 70 have him de-
p;t r. BIZ bsnt fe soscton L,y 'hOrcuPon Ind r'ed IT
little Rans presented artary, and il nc. pad
ssa Law TBsPepSS Robert. iansd lay 70 have I and
,he collateral sold and Lay without striking restrict
the sss .o sG above 20 NJ . ss1G' ''
The Ints claimed tina, THE Of Robert. snd Lsy
duly prot.nsd md they had ten ay nted and they hd
be cssed the note with III asraes upon IT, aud with
ot- Of protest attached to DO SID that they were Liable Is
On he art Of the defendants was Insisted that no consc.
trsn,;er Of the in,--,, which they b-d In 4 that h.s
S n. sale and s hs. amer @atuy sah contrast
womb Rave beer contract that tie defendants would pay the
r. ndspt. could Re charged new desnd must have s--a made
i reasonable the Of the rlsker md notice
On bthaif Ofe plaintiff insisted tina, tn such
pew IrVet or notice ve- pecesssry.
Ihe case tried before Jodg, Woodruff ~hs sent to th.
GebeIal Tern without decidngit
newt itwns resrru.d Il DE May Term
Ep ne Courf-MoycnIHr Jsies- the tine Ncolay
poy ID uconeer to ri the note In question Mother Ley
nor hob.r's liable ndorser OF 1t 10 any person
He'd Needy then owned D.. not and had he transferred
LEY and Hoieits not log liable indoTser) the plain
ne purcis,e Ncoisy could not mainsn sction
Fenr transferred amer II due the ndcrser. woula
subject al dense existing IN Of the nIoT-eJ maker
Ecolsy did rot sel cnns TO be the OF IT, He stated
that be soli for whom Il might concern That was enough
induce inquiry fer tie o. tire principal or for
whom sle ,nsde knowledge oil the fact would affect
the purchasers raft.
Nieosy did W ;sotsss TO offer for ,Ae which the
Defendants liable hdorse,s orwhieh wa, 10 be ndcrsed
by them 90 transferring bu, tie thing offered 70. SALE
noun and described g, the tine note for $3.50 Of
CHARLES Waterbury, WITH collateral attached That fairly
i pos think offer TO sell note mad by Waterbury,
instead ficosy had made the sale and said II offer
Roberts, Tor myself and Robert note e1hibft
ing Of Charles g. Waterbury, with collateral stached and
plaintiff had then bought TANK IL quito oIor that sale
thus ond not Ivy the terms fair import Of .uod
ret impose upon Ley Roberts any debility a. susntT OF
tndorfer. -
he sale having been made by Ncolay sueoneer and
hry the tine been d-aed 20 be msde for the benefit OF
WHOM may concern The plaintiff. light. not greater then
they would have been In the Gael ,uProsed
II the des-y Of the note with the ~ Lay and Roberts
lad rtin their hsr, delivering To tho pIais,
then demand Of payment Of the skeT and IN casa
Of no, notice Thereof TO the deferd.s would be No
action against them ird q note,
r. 9G5 = c. Comcck Rep 4sl No such demand has 5eea
made. -
l.. aside and The complaint dismissed d. Marvin for pn
tH; w. Stanley, for defendant.
DECISIONS.
Dubois sgt. Ray.-Resrgument ordered.
Saekett and wife ada. Acknowledgment affirmed
Berry, receiver agt. Brett ct aL-Judgment or.de-
ispdsnts