# Brown v. . Leavitt

> New York Court of Appeals · January 5, 1865 · 31 N.Y. 113

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3629078

## Case

- **Full name:** George L. Brown, Executor, &C., of Charles Burrall, Deceased, Respondent, v. George A. Leavitt and Others, Appellants
- **Court:** New York Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** January 5, 1865
- **Citations:** 31 N.Y. 113
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court by Davis
- **Judges:** Davis
- **Cited by:** 35 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3629078

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3629078. Public record. Not legal advice.