Berler v. Grossman

188 Misc. 201, 67 N.Y.S.2d 520, 1947 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1984
CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York
DecidedJanuary 2, 1947
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

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

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

Related

Ensign v. Klekosky
25 Misc. 2d 536 (New York Supreme Court, 1959)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
188 Misc. 201, 67 N.Y.S.2d 520, 1947 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1984, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/berler-v-grossman-nyappterm-1947.