Dickerson v. Wason

This ease was once before the general term of this district. At that time the judgment was set aside, and a new trial ordered. The opinion of the justice decided that the plaintiff could not recover. On the second trial a judgment was ordered for the defendant. I think it was right. (48 Barb. 412.)

The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

I concur in the conclusion that this judgment, in reference to the previous action of the general term, when the case was first before it, should be affirmed. But I do not wish to be understood as assenting to the correctness of that decision.

Judgment affirmed.

Clerke, Carozo and Geo. G. Barnard, Justices.]

I concur in the above conclusion. The case referred to by the plaintiffs’ counsel (McBride v. The Farmers' Bank of Salem, 25 Barb. 657; 26 N. Y. Rep. 650) does not support his position. It was there held that, to justify the receiving bank in retaining the proceeds of *236the notes, a credit must have been given on the strength of the particular notes of their proceeds. In the case before us this is precisely what was done by the defendants, in respect to the note in question. They gave credit for it to Van Saun & Son, from whom they received it.