Majority
p. 690Griswold v. Laverty.
Headnote
In. an action by the holder, against the second endorser of a promissory note, a complaint which states the making of the note, and sets forth a copy of it, and
p. 691(Before Oakley, O. J., Dueb, Campbell, Hoffman, and Slosson, J.J.) Oct. 1854.
which also states that the payee and the second endorser, before its maturity, endorsed it in writing, and that before it fell due, the plaintiff became and is now the holder and owner of it, is good in substance, without a formal averment that the second endorser delivered it to the plaintiff. The word endorsement, in common acceptation importing a delivery, the averment of an actual endorsement and possession by the holder before maturity, is equivalent to an allegation that it was endorsed to the plaintiff. The two averments are together sufficient, primd facie, to establish that the holder has a good title to the note.
The complaint was upon a promissory note, made by Coffee and Cutter, payable to the order of Daniel T. Youngs, and endorsed in blank by the latter, and also by the defendant.
On a demurrer to the complaint, the latter was held to be good, and the points above stated were decided at General Term. The case, with the opinion of the court, is reported in the N. Y. Leg. Ob. vol. 12, p. 316.