# National Park Bank v. Ninth National Bank

> New York Supreme Court · June 7, 1869 · 55 Barb. 87

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5461949

## Case

- **Full name:** The National Park Bank of New York v. The Ninth National Bank
- **Court:** New York Supreme Court
- **Decided:** June 7, 1869
- **Citations:** 55 Barb. 87; 1869 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 120
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Sutherland
- **Judges:** Ingraham, Sutherland
- **Cited by:** 4 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/5461949

## Opinion text

Sutherland, J., (dissenting.)
I have nothing ’to add to my opinion below, in this case, except this: The case of Jenys v. Fancier (2 Str. 946) was alluded to by the counsel for the plaintiff in Price v. Neale, as reported in 3 Bur. *125 1354 , and 1 Black. 390 ; and from what Lord Raymond said in that case, it is probable that the rule in Price v. Neale was really adopted on the ground of public policy; that is, that the adoption of the rule was calculated to promote the negotiability of commercial paper, by promoting confidence in its genuineness.
[New York General Term,
June 7, 1869.
Judgment reversed, and demurrer overruled.
Clerke, Ingraham and Sutherland, Justices.]

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5461949. Public record. Not legal advice.