Case Name: GENS v. HAMILTON et al.
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1910-06-24
Citations: 123 N.Y.S. 981
Docket Number: 
Parties: GENS v. HAMILTON et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 123
Pages: 981–981

Head Matter:
GENS v. HAMILTON et al.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
June 24, 1910.)
Bills and Notes (§ 414 )—Indorsers—Protest.
To recover against an indorser of a note, proof of notice of protest is essential.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Bills and Notes, Dec. Dig. § 414.*]
Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Seventh District.
Action by Frank Gens against Frank C. Hamilton, as maker oí promissory notes, and against Adolph Hoeffling and another, as indorsers. From a judgment for plaintiff, and from an order denying .a motion for a new trial, the indorsers appeal.
Reversed, and new trial, ordered.
Argued before SEABURY, GUY, and BIJUR, JJ. .
Rasquin & Rasquin, for appellants.
Leo Lerner, for respondent
For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
BIJUR, J.
This action was brought against the maker and indorsers of four promissory notes, alleged to be due and unpaid. The notes were offered in evidence, and are marked as Plaintiff's Exhibits 1 to 4, respectively. There was no evidence of protest. Respondent claims that- the notices of protest were pinned to the exhibits when offered. These notices are not marked in evidence.
Consequently, in the condition of the record before us, the judgment must be reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to appellants to abide the event. All concur.