Austin, Nichols & Co. v. Collingwood Chestnut Bar Corp.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Austin, Nichols & Co. v. Collingwood Chestnut Bar Corp.

11 Misc. 2d 483, 172 N.Y.S.2d 865, 1958 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 4001

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJanuary 23, 1958

StatusPublished

This text of 11 Misc. 2d 483 (Austin, Nichols & Co. v. Collingwood Chestnut Bar Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Austin, Nichols & Co. v. Collingwood Chestnut Bar Corp., 11 Misc. 2d 483, 172 N.Y.S.2d 865, 1958 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 4001 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1958).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The papers sufficiently raise questions of fact as to notice of presentment, dishonor and protest and timeliness thereof, which should be passed upon by trial rather than determined upon a motion for summary judgment. Moreover, failure to give notice of dishonor and protest for nonpayment to the indorsers is not excused by reason of the fact that they were officers of the corporate maker of the dishonored note. They are entitled to the statutory notice when they are sought to be held secondarily liable (Goldstein v. Brastone Corp., 254 App. Div. 288, affd. 279 N. Y. 775; Shenkin v. Grant, 3 Misc 2d 333).

The judgment and order should be reversed, with $10 costs to appellants, and motion denied.

Hecht, J. P., Aubelio and Tilzer, J.J., concur.

Judgment and order reversed, etc.

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

Per Curiam.

The papers sufficiently raise questions of fact as to notice of presentment, dishonor and protest and timeliness thereof, which should be passed upon by trial rather than determined upon a motion for summary judgment. Moreover, failure to give notice of dishonor and protest for nonpayment to the indorsers is not excused by reason of the fact that they were officers of the corporate maker of the dishonored note. They are entitled to the statutory notice when they are sought to be held secondarily liable (Goldstein v. Brastone Corp., 254 App. Div. 288, affd. 279 N. Y. 775; Shenkin v. Grant, 3 Misc 2d 333).

The judgment and order should be reversed, with $10 costs to appellants, and motion denied.

Hecht, J. P., Aubelio and Tilzer, J.J., concur.

Judgment and order reversed, etc.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

11 Misc. 2d 483, 172 N.Y.S.2d 865, 1958 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 4001, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/austin-nichols-co-v-collingwood-chestnut-bar-corp-nyappterm-1958.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack