Case Name: Christian Cook, Respondent, v. Josephine Rowell, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1895-07
Citations: 95 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 620
Docket Number: 
Parties: Christian Cook, Respondent, v. Josephine Rowell, Appellant.
Judges: Hardin, P. J., and Martin, J , concurred.
Reporter: Supreme Court Reports (Hun)
Volume: 95
Pages: 620–620

Head Matter:
Christian Cook, Respondent, v. Josephine Rowell, Appellant.
Judgment affirmed, 'with costs.—

Opinion:
Merwin, J.:
I fail to find in this case any good ground for reversal. The action is on two notes, and the defendant cannot complain because the plaintiff has recovered on but ofie. Whethei the defendant in fact indorsed the last note, and whether there was any duress as to the indorsement of either, were questions of fact and disposed of by the referee in favor of plaintiff. The giving of time was a sufficient consideration." The defendant says she was not in any event to be troubled or called on for pay, but this, if a defense, was a question of fact. The defendant says that more interest was allowed than was demanded. The argument is based on what was evidently a .clerical error. Besides, the aggregate of the demand is more than the recovery. The defendant was ari accommodation indorser for the maker for valuable consideration and liable for the full amount. The judgment should be affirmed, without opinion.
Hardin, P. J., and Martin, J , concurred.