From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hauxhurst v. Ritch

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Jan 14, 1890
23 N.E. 176 (N.Y. 1890)
Download
PDF
Check
Treatment

Summary

In Hauxhurst v. Ritch, 119 N.Y. 621, it was held that possession by the payee, or some one claiming under him, of a written instrument evidencing an indebtedness due from the maker thereof, raises a presumption that the debt has not been paid, and that the possession of the note made plaintiff a prima facie holder and owner.

Summary of this case from Brown v. Janes
See 1 Summary

Opinion

Submitted December 19, 1889

Decided January 14, 1890

George C. Brainerd for appellant.

E.G. Duvall, Jr., for respondent.

FINCH, J. read for affirmance.

All concur.

Judgment affirmed.

Summaries of

Hauxhurst v. Ritch

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Jan 14, 1890
23 N.E. 176 (N.Y. 1890)

In Hauxhurst v. Ritch, 119 N.Y. 621, it was held that possession by the payee, or some one claiming under him, of a written instrument evidencing an indebtedness due from the maker thereof, raises a presumption that the debt has not been paid, and that the possession of the note made plaintiff a prima facie holder and owner.

Summary of this case from Brown v. Janes
Case details for

Hauxhurst v. Ritch

Case Details

Full title:ELBERT W. HAUXHURST, Respondent, v . THOMAS J. RITCH, JR., as…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Jan 14, 1890

Citations

23 N.E. 176 (N.Y. 1890)
23 N.E. 176

Citing Cases

Walker v. Gardener

In the Hallock case, HARDIN, P.J., wrote an elaborate opinion, collecting and reviewing all of the cases…

Brown v. Janes

In Kidder v. Horrobin, 72 N.Y. 159, the court held that possession of the draft in suit by the assignee of…

2 Citing Cases