The New York herald., 1869-01-21
SUPERIOR CCuR1--spECI,L TERN.


WiuidBl Mckinley rS the American Exchange
Ba,sk.--Judge McCunn rendered the following judg-
ment In this case:-Ths is action for damages for
defacing note by the paying teller OF the bank
writing on the face thereof the words payment
stoppedn In pencil a. answer to demand OF pay.
ment on the day 1t became due. 1t Is admitted IN
the complaint that the writing complained OF was
made ON the day OF the maturity Of the note, and
the evidence Is that the day previous to its maturity
payment had been stopped, SO that we have the un-
disputed fact that that day the character OF the
note was nxed and subsequent purchasers must
take 1t subject to oil equities. The writing on the
face did not In any wise change the condition OF the
parties 10 the instrument diminish its value II
was the record OF fact which any purchaser had q
right to know, and the concealment Of which, II
II had not been so recorded would have been
q fraud upon such purchaser The writing OF the
words payment stoppedr on note payable at q
bank simply ammo unces the intention OF the maker
that his funds in that bank shall not be applied to
discredit the note nor import that ne win not pro-
vide for II ut some other place, especially when we
take into consideration that the defendants bank
agent could not be sued as long as it DISCLOSED
its principal. This Is o well established rule OF
Complained Of dues not AFFECT the liability Of the
maker endorscrs Destroying or defacing writ
ten contract does not AFFECT the liability OF the par
ties TO IT, Had the bank even destroyed the note the
remedy OF the holder would not have been affected
IN the slightest degree, and then the remedy
must be against the maker, not against the bank;
prove its destruction and contents. This
IL the doctrine laid down in Edwards on
Bills, 302 JOS, and adhered to through al the
books. The instant payment OF the note was de-
manded and refused; 1t vas dishonored, and every
ject, al have said before, to ali equities existing
between the antecedent parties and maker. 1t was
just as valuable for the purposes Of assignments as
II the words were never written upon 1t. And ~
the value Of the instrument or It's assgnabiIty
not afected by the act OF the defendant IN marking
notice 70 an Intended purchaser hat the maker had
stopped Its payment. Now, apart rom all other
considerations good faith and common honesty
would have required the plainti 10 disclose TO any
purchaser that payment had been stopped as soon
as that fact was communicated 20 him; and
10 noIS wGu,i The gerendant aslc for giving poco
which common honesty required the plaintiff hiui-
self to give. There h another reason why this plain
til cannot The plaintiffs testimony II that
he purchased the note In good faith before 1t was
due. This perfected his right OF action against the
maker and endorsers, who were. upon his own
showing perfectly solvent at the time the note came
due, and continued so long after; and plaintiff not
having exhsusted his remedy IN this respect this
action nust fail. The whole theory favor OF a re-
covery IN tins case would seem more like broad
Joke than a serious argument when you reject that
were simply pencil marks and might have been
taken or In the easiest possible manner. II the
deiendsnt had ne ne rsn. ITO to = place them there the
ment mutlre brdercd for the defendant
suIs 2n e Ehaiscl Mortgage.
- Before SalSsS Bsrvanf,-
Hattie Leland Is znitye,To et gkf-ln thls case
The paintin br0ughta SUIT TO restrain the enforce.
men OF chattel mortgage on certain furpllsS ~,
the ground that her purchase OF such tgliturr and
the felurnin{ u tue mortgage wsIo sii parts uf an
agreement ftr Che purpose Qf Popping house Of ili
fame. It was undefStQQ1 tsat she was TO ray Tor
the furniture out.of fht profits Of the business. An
inlulct1on Vas granted ey p1se, but motion TO dis
solve IL was also granted.
Judge Barbour said that taking the paintn's state
mcnp A. true probably there was no validity In
either the sfle or mortgage, the whole transaction
being contra bonds nloJes but that she herself being
guilty in entering into the contract public policy
required the Court TO refuse its interference IN the
matter. The plalntiG had accordingly no cause or
action.
Decisions.
Judge Barbour rendered judgment In the following
cases this morning.
leland rs. 7utoyero-InjunctIon dissolved, with
ten dollars costs.
Dossgoan us. Fy'0ster.-Order granted.
M ne Mater or Daufdson aud Spdaldfnq.- Motion
to reduce hail denied and prisoners femsndod.