For Your Data Rigid V. Sheffield Instance Brief
November 07, 2020
Edit
Strong v. Sheffield case brief summary
144 N.Y. 392
FACTS: Plaintiff appealed an gild of the General Term of the Supreme Court inwards the Second Judicial Department (New York) that reversed the trial court's judgment for plaintiff inwards a claim for payment of a promissory note.
FACTS:
- Defendant endorsed a promissory banking concern annotation made betwixt her married adult man too payee plaintiff every minute safety for a preexisting debt.
-The promissory note, though non genuinely presented for ii years, was due upon demand.
HOLDING:
The courtroom held that a contract must hold out supported past times consideration, too accused did non have whatever consideration inwards central for her endorsement of the promissory note, because plaintiff did non hope to forego collection of the banking concern annotation for whatever menses of time.
ANALYSIS:
When the adapt is betwixt the endorser too the payee of a promissory note, the payee does non qualify every minute a bona fide holder of the note, too question into adequate consideration inwards such a representative tin hold out made.
RULES:
-The consideration is to hold out tested past times the agreement, non what is done nether it.-There was no understanding to forebear for a fixed fourth dimension or for a reasonable time, only an understanding to forebear for such a fourth dimension every minute the plaintiff would elect.
OUTCOME: Order that reversed judgment inwards favor of plaintiff too held for accused affirmed because a promissory banking concern annotation must hold out supported past times consideration where the adapt is betwixt the master copy parties to the agreement.
---
Interested inwards learning how to acquire the pinnacle grades inwards your constabulary schoolhouse classes? Want to larn how to report smarter than your competition? Interested inwards transferring to a high ranked school?
144 N.Y. 392
FACTS: Plaintiff appealed an gild of the General Term of the Supreme Court inwards the Second Judicial Department (New York) that reversed the trial court's judgment for plaintiff inwards a claim for payment of a promissory note.
FACTS:
- Defendant endorsed a promissory banking concern annotation made betwixt her married adult man too payee plaintiff every minute safety for a preexisting debt.
-The promissory note, though non genuinely presented for ii years, was due upon demand.
HOLDING:
The courtroom held that a contract must hold out supported past times consideration, too accused did non have whatever consideration inwards central for her endorsement of the promissory note, because plaintiff did non hope to forego collection of the banking concern annotation for whatever menses of time.
ANALYSIS:
When the adapt is betwixt the endorser too the payee of a promissory note, the payee does non qualify every minute a bona fide holder of the note, too question into adequate consideration inwards such a representative tin hold out made.
RULES:
-The consideration is to hold out tested past times the agreement, non what is done nether it.-There was no understanding to forebear for a fixed fourth dimension or for a reasonable time, only an understanding to forebear for such a fourth dimension every minute the plaintiff would elect.
OUTCOME: Order that reversed judgment inwards favor of plaintiff too held for accused affirmed because a promissory banking concern annotation must hold out supported past times consideration where the adapt is betwixt the master copy parties to the agreement.
---
Interested inwards learning how to acquire the pinnacle grades inwards your constabulary schoolhouse classes? Want to larn how to report smarter than your competition? Interested inwards transferring to a high ranked school?