Case Name: SULLIVAN et al. v. FOOTE
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1909-12-29
Citations: 120 N.Y.S. 61
Docket Number: 
Parties: SULLIVAN et al. v. FOOTE.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 120
Pages: 61–62

Head Matter:
SULLIVAN et al. v. FOOTE.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
December 29, 1909.)
Bills and Notes (§ 517 )—Actions—Sufficiency of Evidence—Genuineness of Signature.
In an action on a note against an alleged accommodation signer, evidence helé to sustain a finding that defendant'did not sign the note.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Bills and Notes, Cent. Dig. §§ 1807, 1809; Dec. Dig. § 517. ']
Appeal from- Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, First District.
Action by Michael Sullivan and others against Harry W. Foote. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiffs appeal.
Affirmed.
Argued before GIEGERICH, GOFF, and LEHMAN, JJ.
Maxson & Jones, for appellants.
Benjamin & Taylor, for respondent.
For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am.-Digs. 1907- to date, & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
GIEGERICH, J.
The issue was whether the defendant signed the accommodation note sued upon. He testified that he did not, nor did he sign any note for the accommodation of the payee at so late a date as this note bore. In addition to this testimony, we have the signature upon the note and the signature of the defendant to the answer, and to two letters placed in evidence by the plaintiffs, and his name written six times upon a piece of paper at the trial at the direction of the trial justice. In important respects,-the name as written upon the note differs from the nine conceded signatures of the defendant. Against all this we have only the deposition of the payee, who received the benefit of the note, that it was signed by the defendant. We cannot accede to the claim of the plaintiffs that there is such a preponderance of the evidence in their favor as to warrant a reversal, if, indeed, there be any preponderance in their favor.
The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.
LEHMAN, J., concurs.