John Catron

Name: Miller v. Austen — Opinion of the Court
Author: John Catron

Summary

“Miller v. Austen — Opinion of the Court”, is a work by John Catron. It explores elements such as Henry Miller, promise and Hugh Short.

Quotes from Miller v. Austen — Opinion of the Court (John Catron)

John Catron, Miller v. Austen — Opinion of the Court

“ The statute of that State declares all promissory notes, drawn for a sum certain, payable to any person or order, or to any person or his assigns, negotiable by indorsement.
The established doctrine is, that a promise to deliver, or to be accountable for, so much money, is a good bill or note. Here the sum is certain, and the promise direct. Every reason exists why the indorser of this paper should be held responsible to his indorsee, that can prevail in cases where the paper indorsed is in the ordinary form of a promissory note ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

John Catron, Miller v. Austen — Opinion of the Court

“ We do not think it worth while to comment on the positions of the counsel for the plaintiffs in error, that the paper in question is not a promissory note, because subject to the condition of the return of the certificate; and that, if it is a note at all, it is a note to Hugh Short, and not to Henry Miller. The first is refuted by the remark of the court which suggested it, that it is a condition which is implied by law in every promissory note; and the second is refuted by the language of the instrument, and the act of the defendant himself. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

John Catron, Miller v. Austen — Opinion of the Court

“ We refer the court, also, to 1 Greenl. Rep. 535; 2 Cow. Rep. 536; 10 Wend. 675; and, in deciding the last of which cases, Nelson, J., said, 'the instrument is a promissory note within the statute, as it contains every quality essential to such paper. The acknowledgment of indebtedness on its face implies a promise to pay the plaintiffs,' and the payment, by its terms, was to be in money, absolutely. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

John Catron, Miller v. Austen — Opinion of the Court

“ A promise implied by law, founded upon a mere acknowledged indebtment, will not be sufficient. Thus, where A wrote upon a slip of paper 'I O U eight guineas,' it was held to be a mere due-bill, and not a promissory note. But if the promise were 'Due to A B 20, payable to him or order,' it would be a promissory note, for it contains more than the law would imply, and becomes negotiable. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

John Catron, Miller v. Austen — Opinion of the Court

“ Mr. Fox. We maintain this is not a promissory note, as described in the declaration, so as to pass by indorsement, as a mercantile instrument. That it is not so considered in a mercantile sense, nor is it a promissory note under the statute of Ohio. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

John Catron, Miller v. Austen — Opinion of the Court

“ The plaintiffs below claimed the word payable was equivalent to an express promise to pay. Supposing it is so, for the sake of argument, how does the case stand? The certificate certifies that Hugh Short has deposited in the bank, payable in twelve months from 1st May, 1839, with 5 per cent. interest till due, $1,500. From this statement the promise to be implied, from the word payable, would be to Hugh Short. The subsequent statement, 'for the use of Henry Miller,' would no more in this case than in the case of an express promise, change the nature of the legal obligation. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

John Catron, Miller v. Austen — Opinion of the Court

“ We will only add two or three cases, which illustrate somewhat strikingly the disposition to which the Supreme Court of New York referred, when they said, 'the great commercial advantages growing out of negotiable instruments, have induced the courts to adopt a most liberal rule in construing them.' The first case is that of Walker v. ”

John Catron

Summary

Quotes from Miller v. Austen — Opinion of the Court (John Catron)

Common terms

Similar works

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature