Case Name: William H. Weaver et al., Respondents, v. Joseph T. Farrington, Impleaded, Appellant
Court: New York Court of Common Pleas
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1894-03
Citations: 7 Misc. 405
Docket Number: 
Parties: William H. Weaver et al., Respondents, v. Joseph T. Farrington, Impleaded, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 7
Pages: 405–406

Head Matter:
William H. Weaver et al., Respondents, v. Joseph T. Farrington, Impleaded, Appellant.
(New York Common Pleas—General Term,
March, 1894.)
An answer in an action against an indorser of a promissory note which alleges that the indorsement was made without consideration and for the accommodation of the maker, and that the latter transferred it to the plaintiff as collateral security for an existing indebtedness, but does not allege that there was fraud or diversion in such transfer, does not set up a valid defense; but, on the contrary, establishes the right of the plaintiff to recover.
Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the General Term of the City Court, affirming a judgment for plaintiffs entered upon a verdict directed by the court.
The action was upon a promissory note made by George Blair and indorsed by Joseph T. Farrington.
Samuel 0. Mount, for appellant.
Nelson 8. Ga/rr, for respondents.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The facts which the appellant Farrington, the indorser, sets up in his answer establish the right of the plaintiff to recover; for, while alleging that he indorsed the note for the accommodation of Blair, he avers substantially that the latter' transferred it to the plaintiff as collateral security for an existing indebtedness of Blair, and nowhere alleges that there was either fraud or diversion in such transfer.
In the case of Mechanics & Traders' Bank v. Livingston, 6 Misc. Rep. 81; 55 N. Y. St. Repr. 394; 26 N. Y. Supp. 25, we held that the transferee of a negotiable note, taken before matuzity as collateral security for a precedent debt, is a holder for value, and he may enforce it against the accommodation maker and indorser if there be no diversion or other fraud in its acquisition. None of the defenses which were attempted to be proved on the trial were set up in the answer, and were, therefore, properly excluded. The judgznent must be affirmed.
Present: Daly, Ch. J., Bischofe and Pryor, JJ.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.