Adee v. Crow — 58 N.Y. St. Rep. 33

Majority

p. 33

Fred. Adee, Resp’t, v. Moses R. Crow, App’lt.

(New York City Court, General Term,

Filed February 8,1894.)

Headnote

Bills and notes—Fictitious.

Where the defendant executes and delivers his note to a third person, who delivers it to plaintiff the defense that plaintiff did business under a firm name without having a partner is unavailable.

Appeal from judgment entered on verdict in favor of plaintiff. ATbertus Perry, for app’lt; Stephen H. Yeaman, for resp’t.

The action is on a promissory note, made by

p. 34

defendant to the order.of one John Tilley, and by him delivered to the plaintiff. The sole ground urged against the verdict is, that the plaintiff did business under the name and style of “ Fred. Adee & Co.,” without having a partner. The defense was not pleaded, and the plaintiff was not called upon to prove that he had secured the right to use the firm name under existing statutes. But aside from this, the defense was unavailable against the note in suit. Gay v. Seibold, 97 N. Y. 475 . The appeal is destitute of merit and the judgment must be affirmed, with costs.

All concur.