Court Opinion

ID: 9867074
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-26 14:44:12.57972+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:44:26.001554
License: Public Domain

Cullen, Ch. J.
While concurring in the opinion of Judge Chase, I desire to add this: It would be a good defense to the appellants’ liability as indorsers of the note in suit to show that such indorsement was obtained by fraud, and I concede the claim that the fraud practiced on the vendee in the contract of sale might be the same fraud which induced the *227indorsement of the obligation of the vendee for the purchase money. In pleading such a fraud the indorsers would be availing themselves neither of the vendee’s right to rescind the contract nor of the latter’s cause of action for damages.. But the difficulty in this case is that the indorsement of the appellants on the note sued upon was made after their knowledge of the fraud practiced on the vendee and was given with such knowledge to secure a renewal of the original note for which the note in suit ivas substituted. Therefore, the appellants’ relief, if any, must be had in an equitable action as suggested in Gillespie v. Torranee (25 N. Y. 306).
Gray, Haight, Vann, Willard Bartlett and Hiscock, JJ., concur with Chase, J., and Cullen, Ch. J., concurs in memorandum.
Judgment affirmed.