Case Name: Sebring & Van Wyck against Rathbun
Court: New York Supreme Court of Judicature
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1800-04
Citations: 1 Johns. Cas. 331
Docket Number: 
Parties: Sebring & Van Wyck against Rathbun.
Judges: 
Reporter: Johnson's Cases
Volume: 1
Pages: 398–399

Head Matter:
Sebring & Van Wyck against Rathbun.
Where a note is endorsed after it is dishonored, the maker may set up every equitable defence in an action by the endorsee, which he might have done against the payee.
But if the maker has confessed judgment on the note, the court will not set aside the judgment, in order to let in such equitable defence, especially, where the original parties are in pari delicto.
The plaintiffs were holders of a promissory note given by the defendant for the purchase money of lands in this state, bought by him from the payee, under a title derived from the state of Connecticut. The note was endorsed to the plaintiffs after it fell due, who brought this action, in which the defendant had confessed judgment.
Burr, on an affidavit stating these facts,
moved to set aside the judgment, and to be let into a defence, on the ground that the consideration of the note was illegal, according to the determination of the court of errors, at their last session, in the case of Woodworth and Rathbnrn v. Janes and Dale, and that as the plaintiff received it after it was dishonored, he took it subject to every equitable defence as between the original parties.
Riggs, contra.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The note being endorsed to the plaintiffs, after it was dishonored,' the defendant no doubt had a *right to make every defence against them which [*332] he might have setup against the payee ; but he has confessed judgment, and admitting the decision of the court of errors to have been made on the ground stated by the defendant's counsel, both the parties, as to the original transaction on which the note was given, were equally culpable, and. in pari delicto ; and the court will not therefore interpose in favor of either.
Rule refused.
Johnson v. Bloodgood, supra, 51, 54, n. (a)
The maxims In pari delicto, potior est conditio possidentis, and In azquali jure mclio'r est conditio possidentis, are fully considered in Bro. Max. 323-330.