Case Name: MIDDLETON, Respondent, v. HALTER, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1901-06
Citations: 72 N.Y.S. 1119
Docket Number: 
Parties: MIDDLETON, Respondent, v. HALTER, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 72
Pages: 1119–1119

Head Matter:
MIDDLETON, Respondent, v. HALTER, Appellant.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
June, 1901.)
Action by Solomon S. Middleton against Alexander J. Halter.'
Isaac V. Schavrien, for appellant. Douglass & Minton (Henry B. Corey, of counsel), for respondent.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
This action was brought against defendant as indorser upon two promissory notes made by one Henry D. Stringer, of which plaintiff was the owner and holder. Each note was for §640 and interest. One was payable in three months after February 6, 1900, and the other in six months from said date. At maturity the three-months note was presented for payment, but was not paid, and subsequently it is claimed an agreement was made by plaintiff, who was still the owner and holder of the dishonored note, and defendant, that plaintiff should renew this note, and, in consideration of his doing so, defendant should indorse the six-months note and also the renewal note; and it is further claimed that, pursuant to this agreement, defendant indorsed both notes. Upon presentation at maturity, neither of the notes was paid, and both were duly protested. The defense litigated upon the trial was that the indorsements were obtained by false and fraudulent representations made to the defendant regarding the terms and conditions of a deed of conveyance by which certain real estate had been conveyed by defendant to plaintiff. The false representations, it is conceded, were to the effect that defendant was liable for certain unpaid water rents and taxes, whereas in truth no such liability existed. Defendant insisted that it was on reliance upon false representations regarding his liability by the terms of the deed that he was induced to indorse the notes, and not in consideration of the renewal of the dishonored note. The charge of the learned trial court indicates that the presiding justice entertained some pretty strong views on the facts, but no exception was talien to his remarks. The judgment was affirmed on appeal in the court below, and, as our decision must rest upon exceptions properly taken, we are not called upon to review the facts. Judgment (69 N. Y. Supp. 510) affirmed, with costs.