Brown v. . Leavitt

Davis, J.

The note in suit was indorsed and delivered by Zebley & Co. to plaintiff’s testator, before it fell due, in payment, so far as it went, of a larger note than held by the testator. It was received with other notes, and a balance in cash, as such payment of the larger note, delivered up to Zebley

&

Co.

In this State it is settled by abundant authority that this transaction constituted the plaintiff’s testator a holder, for value, of the note in question.

(Bank of Salina

v.

Babcock,

21 Wend., 499 ;

Bank of St. Albans

v.

Gilleland,

23 id., 311;

Bank of Sandusky

v.

Scoville,

24 id., 115;

White

v.

Springfield Bank,

3 Sandf. S. C., 222;

Young

v.

Lee,

18 Barb., 188 ;

S. C.

affirmed, 2 Kern., 534;

Stetthein,

v

. Meyer,

33 Barb., 215 ;

Mohawk Bank

v.

Corey,

1 Hill, 515 ;

Meads

v.

Bank of Albany,

25 N. Y., 149 ;

Stalker

v.

McDonald,

6 Hill, 93 .)

A further discussion of the question might lead to a suspicion that the law was in doubt on the point,

The judgment should be affirmed.

AH the judges concurring, judgment affirmed.