(Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department.Headnote
1. Biles and Notes (§ 316*)—Assignment—Consideration., It is no defense to a note, as against an assignee thereof, that the assignee paid no consideration therefor, and he is entitled to the' rights possessed by the assignor.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Bills and Notes, Cent. Dig. § 752; Dec. Dig. § 316.*]
2. Bills and Notes (§ 493*)—Consideration—Evidence.
Where there is no evidence that a note sued on was without consideration, and it shows on its face that it was given for value, judgment should be given for plaintiff.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Bills and Notes, Gent. Dig. §§ 1652-1662; Dec. Dig. § 493.*]
Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, First District.
Action by Richard Canning and another against Leo E. Lane; the name “Leo” being fictitious. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiffs appeal.
Argued October term, 1912, before SEABURY, GUY, and BI-JUR,JJ.Joseph M. Williams, of New York City, for appellants.
White & Case, of New York City (Graham Foster, of New York City, of counsel), for respondent.
A motion for reargument herein was duly granted.
[1] Plaintiffs, as assignees of the payee of a note made by defendant, bring this action against the maker to recover the amount named therein. Upon the trial the defendant claimed that the plaintiffs had given no consideration to the payee fpr the note. Assuming this to be true, it was immaterial. The plaintiffs were entitled to the same rights that their assignor possessed.
[2] Upon appeal the defendant claims that the note was originally without consideration. There is, however, no proof in the record in support of this contention. The note was produced, and upon its face shows that it was given for value. Under these circumstances, the court below should have awarded judgment for the plaintiffs.
Judgment reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to appellants to abide the event.