London & Southwestern Bank v. White
Opinion of the Court
The defendant prior to the year 1900 was engaged in business in London, Eng., and had become indebted to plaintiff. He had deposited certain securities with plaintiff as collateral for his indebtedness, and left certain other securities with it for safekeeping.
Early in the year 1900 plaintiff recovered judgments against defendant in England for upwards of £7,000. Defendant then came to the city of New York, where he engaged in business, and in February, 1905, plaintiff commenced an auction in this court upon the English judgments. Defendant answered alleging payment and setting up a counterclaim. Depositions were taken in London concerning the state of the account between plaintiff and defendant, from which it appeared that after the recovery of the English judgments plaintiff had realized upon certain of the securities deposited with it as collateral, and had thereby reduced defendant’s indebtedness to about £6,000. After some negotiations a settlement was arrived at, pursuant to which defendant executed and delivered to plaintiff’s attorney a confession of judgment for $29,040, with interest from June 1, 1906, together with $1,775 costs. It is one of the conceded facts that this sum represented the total claim "of plaintiff against defendant at the time the confession was executed. Contemporaneously with the execution and delivery of this confession a stipulation was entered into between the parties upon the construction of which depends the accuracy of the order appealed from.
In the 1st clause of the stipulation it was provided that the confession of judgment above referred to should be held in
The 3d clause provided for the payment of the costs, of which $650 was to be paid at once, and the balance in specified installments.
The 4th clause reads as follows: “The defendant shall execute any and all forms of transfer of the various shares now held by the plaintiff and any other documents that the plaintiff, or its attorneys may consider necessary to enable the plaintiff to realize upon the securities now in its hands held by it against the defendant, the forms of such documents, transfers and receipts to be prepared by the plaintiff or its agents, and defendant shall only be required to execute any such forms before a Notary Public for the County of New York or English Consul resident in the State of New York.”
The 5th and 6th clauses provided for the assignment by plaintiff to Alice L. White of the confession of judgment, and to defendant or his appointee of the English judgments upon the payment of the last installment of $750. It was further stipulated that defendant might anticipate the payment of the agreed sum and might have thirty days’ grace in the payment of any installment.
The defendant paid the first installment of $750, and made the first payment of $650 on account of the costs. He has not directly made any further payments, but the referee, to whom the matter was referred to take the evidence, has found that plaintiff has paid itself, or is properly chargeable with the proceeds of securities deposited with it by defendant, which
If we are right in our construction of the stipulation and the referee’s computations are accurate as they appear to be, the order appealed from must be affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.
Laughlin, Clarke and Dowling, JJ., concurred; Ingraham, P. J., dissented.
Dissenting Opinion
(dissenting):
I dissent. The plaintiff has recovered in England two judgments against the defendant on which there was due about $29,000. The action in this State was brought on those judgments for that amount. The parties then settled the action by a stipulation, by which the plaintiff agreed to accept in full settlement of the claim the sum of $7,500, payable in installments, and as part of that settlement the defendant agreed to “execute any and all forms of transfer of the various shares now held by the plaintiff and any other documents that the plaintiff, or its attorneys may consider necessary to enable the plaintiff to realize upon the securities now in its hands held by it against the defendant.”
As I understand it, it is not claimed by the defendant that this sum of $7,500 paid the amount of the judgments which was actually due to the plaintiff at the time the settlement was made. It seems to me clear that this sum of $7,500 was to be paid in excess of the securities which the plaintiff held and to which by the settlement it became entitled, and the balance of $7,500 was to be paid in addition to what the plaintiff received from the sale of the securities.
I think, therefore, the defendant was in default and plaintiff was entitled to enter the judgment, and the judgment should not be vacated until the amount actually due the plaintiff has been paid.
Orders affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.