Altmark v. Bank of United States

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Altmark v. Bank of United States

235 A.D. 735

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMarch 15, 1932

StatusPublished

This text of 235 A.D. 735 (Altmark v. Bank of United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Altmark v. Bank of United States, 235 A.D. 735 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

Order denying motion for a rehearing affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. No opinion. Young, Carswell, Tompkins and Davis, JJ., concur; Scudder, J., dissents, with the following memorandum: I think the defendants, under all the circumstances, are not chargeable with delay. Furthermore, the various interests involved in the failure of the Bank of United States are so important that no ordinary technicality of practice should stand in the way of a determination upon the merits of the present case, which, with the Maged case (Matter of Maged v. Bank of United States, 234 App. Div. 295, decided by this court on January 8, 1932) and perhaps other cases growing out of the bank’s failure, may establish very important precedents. I also think there is no reason for believing that defendants are acting in bad faith in making this motion. At least I cannot find any evidence of lack of good faith. As to excuse for delay, see Cohen’s affidavit (Papers on Appeal, fol. 38). With reference to the statement that defendants are bound by the stipulation agreeing to the facts, I think the court has power to grant the relief requested “ in the furtherance of justice. Its power to do so * * * is inherent.” (Ladd v. Stevenson, 112 N. Y. 325, 332.) All defendants ask is a rehearing, which I assume will give them the opportunity of presenting our recent decision in the Maged case as a precedent. That opportunity, in my opinion, should be granted.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order denying motion for a rehearing affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. No opinion. Young, Carswell, Tompkins and Davis, JJ., concur; Scudder, J., dissents, with the following memorandum: I think the defendants, under all the circumstances, are not chargeable with delay. Furthermore, the various interests involved in the failure of the Bank of United States are so important that no ordinary technicality of practice should stand in the way of a determination upon the merits of the present case, which, with the Maged case (Matter of Maged v. Bank of United States, 234 App. Div. 295, decided by this court on January 8, 1932) and perhaps other cases growing out of the bank’s failure, may establish very important precedents. I also think there is no reason for believing that defendants are acting in bad faith in making this motion. At least I cannot find any evidence of lack of good faith. As to excuse for delay, see Cohen’s affidavit (Papers on Appeal, fol. 38). With reference to the statement that defendants are bound by the stipulation agreeing to the facts, I think the court has power to grant the relief requested “ in the furtherance of justice. Its power to do so * * * is inherent.” (Ladd v. Stevenson, 112 N. Y. 325, 332.) All defendants ask is a rehearing, which I assume will give them the opportunity of presenting our recent decision in the Maged case as a precedent. That opportunity, in my opinion, should be granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

235 A.D. 735, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/altmark-v-bank-of-united-states-nyappdiv-1932.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack