Case Name: PASSUT v. HEUBNER
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1913-06-24
Citations: 142 N.Y.S. 546
Docket Number: 
Parties: PASSUT v. HEUBNER.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 142
Pages: 546–547

Head Matter:
(81 Misc. Rep. 249.)
PASSUT v. HEUBNER.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department.
June 24, 1913.)
Bills and Notes (§ 457 )—Joint Obligation. „
A promissory note payable to two persons in the alternative creates a joint interest in the payees, so that either cannot, in the other’s lifetime, sue thereon without joining the other obligee.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Bills and Notes, Cent. Dig. §§ 1381, 1421-1423; Dec. Dig. § 457.*]
Bijur, J., dissenting.
Appeal from City Court of New York, Special Term.
Action by Elizabeth Passut against Marion M. Heubner. From an interlocutory judgment sustaining the demurrer to the complaint, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
Argued June term, 1913, before SEABURY, PAGE, and BIJUR, JJ.
Bernard H. Sandler, of New York City (William J. Lewis, of New York City, on the brief), for appellant.
Richard E. Weldon, of New York City, for respondent.
For other cases see same topic & § number in Deo. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
PAGE, J.
Though there are a few authorities to the contrary (Samuels v. Evans, 1 McLean [U. S.] 473, Fed. Cas. No. 12,289; Spaulding v. Evans, 2 McLean [U. S.] 139, Fed. Cas. No. 13,216; Ellis v. McLemoor, 1 Bailey [S. C.] 13), the weight of authority in this country overwhelmingly supports the contention of the respondent that a promissory note payable to two persons in the alternative creates a joint interest in the payees, and either cannot in the lifetime of the other sue thereon without joining the other joint obligee (Willoughby v. Willoughby, 5 N. H. 244; Osgood v. Pearsons, 70 Mass. [4 Gray] 455 ; Carr v. Bauer, 61 Ill. App. 504; Westgate v. Healy, 4 R. I. 523; Quinby v. Merritt, 11 Humph. [Tenn.] 440; Collyer v. Cook, 28 Ind. App. 272, 275, 62 N. E. 655).
The case of Stelling v. Grabowsky, 19 N. Y. Supp. 280, relied upon by the appellant, is a case in which the other joint obligee was deceased. By reason of his right of survivorship the remaining obligee was entitled to sue upon the obligation alone, and also held that, no demurrer having been interposed to the complaint, the objection that the action could not be maintained by one of the joint obligees was waived and could not be taken by answer.
There seems to be no direct authority in this state, but upon principle and weight of authority in other jurisdictions I am of the opinion that the obligation is joint, and that the demurrer was properly sustained for defect of parties plaintiffs.
The interlocutory judgment should be affirmed, with costs.
SEABURY, J., concurs.
Reported in full in the New York Supplement; reported as a memorandum decision without opinion in 64 Hun, 639.