Case Name: Arnold E. Peterson, Respondent, v. Missouri, Kansas and Texas Railway Company, Appellant; Harry H. Kutner, Respondent, v. Missouri, Kansas and Texas Railway Company, Appellant
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1919-02-07
Citations: 225 N.Y. 707
Docket Number: 
Parties: Arnold E. Peterson, Respondent, v. Missouri, Kansas and Texas Railway Company, Appellant. Harry H. Kutner, Respondent, v. Missouri, Kansas and Texas Railway Company, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 225
Pages: 707–708

Head Matter:
Arnold E. Peterson, Respondent, v. Missouri, Kansas and Texas Railway Company, Appellant. Harry H. Kutner, Respondent, v. Missouri, Kansas and Texas Railway Company, Appellant.
Peterson v. Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co., 175 App. Div. 931, affirmed.
Kutner v. Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co., 175 App. Div. 931, affirmed.
(Submitted January 24, 1919;
decided February 7, 1919.)
Appeal, in each of the above-entitled actions, from a judgment of' the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered November 21, 1916, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict directed by the court. The complaints contained ten causes of action, each founded upon the allegation that the plaintiff was the owner and holder of a certain promissory note in writing made by the defendant on or about the 1st of May, 1913, wherein and whereby the defendant promised to pay to bearer the sum of $1,000 with interest thereon at five per cent per annum on the 1st day of May, 1915, the amount whereof had not been paid. The answer denied that the defend ant made such a contract and as a separate defense alleged that in each of the notes referred to the promise to pay to bearer was not independent but was to be performed expressly under and upon the ■ terms and conditions set forth in a certain trust agreement, which, with the notes therein referred to, formed one instrument and that in each of said notes it was provided on the face thereof that the principal amount provided to be paid should become due in the event that a default as defined in the trust agreement should happen and then should become due and payable in the manner and with the effect therein provided.
M. E. Harby for appellant.
James Garfield Moses for respondent.

Opinion:
Judgment in each case affirmed, with costs; no opinion.
Concur: Chase, Collin, Cuddeback, Hogan, McLaughlin, Crane and Andrews, JJ.