Case Name: Hugh Getty, Incorporated, Respondent, v. Frederic A. Cauchois, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1910-12-16
Citations: 141 A.D. 443
Docket Number: 
Parties: Hugh Getty, Incorporated, Respondent, v. Frederic A. Cauchois, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 141
Pages: 443–445

Head Matter:
Hugh Getty, Incorporated, Respondent, v. Frederic A. Cauchois, Appellant.
First Department,
December 16, 1910.
Bills and notes — action against indorser on notes secured by mortgage — when holder cannot declare whole sum due upon default as to other holders secured — action against indorser before maturity.
The transferee of a portion only of a scries of promissory notes payable at. intervals of one month cannot, on the failure of the maker to pay notes not transferred to him but held by other parties, take advantage of the clause of a mortgage securing the notes, which provided that all the notes should become due at the option of the first indorsee after default in the payment of one of them for twenty days, unless the other holders concur.
Moreover, even if the transferee acquired the right as against the maker to declare the whole debt due so as to resort to the security, the exercise of that right would not make the notes become due before ‘maturity as against his immediate transferor.
Appeal by the defendant, Frederic A. Cauchois, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the plain tiff, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 14th day of May, 1910, upon the verdict of a jury rendered by direction of the. court after a trial at the New York Trial Term.
J. Scurry Snoolo, for the appellant.
William M. Mullen, for the respondent.

Opinion:
Scott, J.':
Appeal by defendant from a judgment entered upon a directed verdict. The action is by an indorsee against an-indorser-of-cer tain promissory notes, none of which by their terms were due and pay- ' able when the action was commenced, and the sole question involved is whether or not the action was prematurely brought. In October, 1908, the defendant, being indebted to plaintiff, paid, it a certain sum in cash and gave it twenty-two promissory notes (of which twenty-one are embraced in this action) made by the Black [Realty Company to its own order, indorsed by it, and in turn indorsed by the' defendant. These notes were for $250 each and payable at intervals of one month; beginning November 1, 1909. They constituted part of an issue of thirty-four similar notes by the said Black [Realty Company, all of which had originally been delivered to defendant. To secure the payment of these thirty-four notes the Black .Realty Company had executed to defendant a mortgage upon real property which contained the following clause: " It is hereby expressly agreed that the whole of1 the said principal sum and all of the unpaid promissory notes shall become due at the option of the said party of the second' part [defendant herein] after default in the payment of any of said promissory notes for twenty days."
It is alleged that the Black Realty Company defaulted in the payment of three of the notes made by it, not among those held by plaintiff. Whereupon plaintiff elected to declare all of the notes due and payable, and sued defendant as indorser. It is not easy to see upon what theory the plaintiff claims the right to accelerate the due date of defendant's indebtedness. The relation between plaintiff and defendant is that of indorsee and indorser, and the only contract betwuen them, is that evidenced by the notes which specify the date upon which defendant's obligation to' pay will mature. The plaintiff seems to consider that in some way it is entitled to exercise the option given to defendant by the terms of the mortgage. Undoubtedly the security follows the debt, and plaintiff having acquired part of the debt owed by the Black [Realty Company^ is entitled to the benefit pro tanto of the security. . If it had acquired all of the notes, it may be that it would have stood in defendant's shoes and been entitled as against the realty eorrvpany to declare all the notes due. But it does not and never has held all the notes, and'has no better right to deal with the security than the holders of the other notes have, and without their concurrence had no right to undertake to declare the whole debt presently due. (Shaw v. Wellman, 59 Hun, 447; Cresco Realty Co. v. Clark, 128 App. Div. 144; Mallory v. West Shore. H. R. R. R. Co., 35 N. Y. Super. Ct. 174.) But even if plaintiff had acquired the right as against the Black Realty Company to declare the whole debt due, so as to resort to the security, the exercise of that right would not have affected the agreement between plaintiff and defendant which was represented by the terms of the notes.
It follows that the action was prematurely brought, and the judgment appealed from must be reversed and a new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide the event.
Ingraham, P. J., McLaughlin, Laughlin and Clarke, JJ., concurred.
Judgment reversed, new trial ordered, costs to appellant to abide event.