The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1879-01-17
THE COURTS.
Expensive Litigation Through Contest
Over Technically.
HARD WORK FOR SIX CENTS.
Extension Of Authority to In
Surance Agents.

In 1873 L. Dubernet made his promssory note to
John Haaf for $780, on which Charles ID. Fredericks
then of the firm of G. ID. Fredericks Co.. became
ndorser. Haaf got the note discounted in the
Nassau Bank and it fell due on the 21st of July of
the same year and protested for non-payment
On the same day that the maker of the note had
failed 10 pay it Haaf drew his check for the
amount and took up the note from the Mas
sau Bank With note and notice of pro-
test in hand he subsequently called Mr..
Fredericks the ndorser and asked for payment. and
was told 60 to the maker of the note and have him
s.settle." Subseq uently the maker paid cash
on account and gave renewal notes for the balance.
There being failure in the payment of these notes
Also Haaf. in 1877. brought suit on the original
note against Mr. Fredericks as ndorser. The prip-
cipal defence set up that by the arrangement
made by Haaf with the maker of the note
the same had either been paid the payee
had given the maker an extension Of
time without tho knowledge or assent of the
indorser thereby relieving the latter from RESPONSE
bilty. The for trial before Judge Sheri-
dan in the Marine Court, when the only testimony
produced the part of plaintiff tending to show
defendant had assented TO the arrangement made with
the maker of the note to extend time was that de-
PENDANT told the plaintiff above stated. to go to
the maker and have him settle it. In charging the
jury Judge Sheridan submitted to their decision the
question whether defendant had knowledge OF the
extension of time given to the maker OF the note.
To this part of the charge Mr.. Thomas Allison.
counsel for the defendant, took exception on the
ground that there evidence in the case
that point to be submitted to the jury. The verdict
was in favor of the plaintiff, and Judgment entered
thereon, with costs, for SAB 10. From this judg-
ment Mr. Allison took an appeal to the General Term
of the Court, where the judgment was reversed
and new trial ordered, Judge McAdam writ
ing the opinion of the Court. From this
decision the plaintiff. through his counsel.
Mr.. Charles T. Whitehead, took appeal
TO the General Term of the Court Of
Common Pleas. There It was commended on the part
plaintiff that the word settle' used by defendant
when he referred plaintiff to the maker of the note
for that purpose meant any arrangement which he
might make with him. whether for extension of time
otherwise, while the part of defendant it was
contended that the word "settle" meant pay, and
that it for pay he referred plaintiff to the
maker of the note and not to extend the time Of pay
At the conclusion of the argument the Court
at affirmed the decision of the General Term Of
the Marine Court ordering new trial and yesterday
there entered in the latter court remitttur
from the General Term of the Court Of Common
Pleas judgment for costs in favor of the defendant
amounting TO S511 76, being more than the original
principal which gave rise to the litigation