Berler v. Grossman

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Berler v. Grossman

188 Misc. 201, 67 N.Y.S.2d 520, 1947 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1984

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York·Decided January 2, 1947·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Memorandum

Per Curiam.

Although there was no affirmative defense of lack or failure of consideration for the negotiable [202]*202instrument in the hands of one not a holder in due course and for value, the court, in the interests of justice, should have permitted the defendant to offer proof that the consideration for which the instrument had been given had failed.

The judgment should be reversed and a new trial ordered, with $20 costs to appellant to abide the event.

Hammeb, Shientag and Edeb, JJ., concur.

Judgment reversed, etc.

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

Memorandum

Per Curiam.

Although there was no affirmative defense of lack or failure of consideration for the negotiable [202]*202instrument in the hands of one not a holder in due course and for value, the court, in the interests of justice, should have permitted the defendant to offer proof that the consideration for which the instrument had been given had failed.

The judgment should be reversed and a new trial ordered, with $20 costs to appellant to abide the event.

Hammeb, Shientag and Edeb, JJ., concur.

Judgment reversed, etc.

Berler v. Grossman, 188 Misc. 201, 67 N.Y.S.2d 520, 1947 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1984 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1947).

Pincite

188 Misc. 201 (Berler v. Grossman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related