Case Name: John Dousmanis, Respondent, v. The Colonial Bank, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1929-06-27
Citations: 134 Misc. 472
Docket Number: 
Parties: John Dousmanis, Respondent, v. The Colonial Bank, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 134
Pages: 472–474

Head Matter:
John Dousmanis, Respondent, v. The Colonial Bank, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,
June 27, 1929.
Epstein & Brothers [Milton N. Mound of counsel], for the appellant.
Stone & Perlman [Louis Stone of counsel], for the respondent.

Opinion:
Bijur, J.
From the argument I drew the inference that opposing counsel were not interested in questions of practice which might arise on the appeal from plaintiff's motion and defendant's cross-motion, but desired a decision addressed to the law of the case.
In my opinion defendant was not a holder in due course if for no other reason than that the drawee can probably never be so regarded. (Brannan Neg. Inst. Law [1926 ed.], 618, and cases cited.) (See, also, 42 Harv. Law Rev. 412 [Jan. 1929] and notes; Woodward Quasi-Contracts, § 80.)
On the other hand, for the reasons given by me in K. & K. Silk Trimming Co. v. Garfield Nat. Bank (127 Misc. 27, 31), I believe that the defendant was subrogated to the rights of the payee of the check against plaintiff and that its counterclaim may be sustained on that theory. Since, however, it appears to be conceded that the consideration for the check failed prior to its due date the counterclaim is without value.
For these reasons I think that the judgment and orders should be affirmed.