Blake v. . Clausen

53 N.E. 1129, 158 N.Y. 727, 1899 N.Y. LEXIS 834
New York Court of Appeals·Decided March 24, 1899·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We think the judgment should be affirmed, with costs. There was no valid renewal of the note in question on the 28th day of October, 1887. (Olmstead v. Latimer, 158 N. Y. 313, and authorities there cited.)

Upon the other questions involved we call attention to, the cases of Chapman v. Lynch (156 N. Y. 551) and Close v. Potter (155 N. Y. 145, 156).

All concur.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

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

Blake v. . Clausen, 53 N.E. 1129, 158 N.Y. 727, 1899 N.Y. LEXIS 834 (N.Y. 1899).

53 N.E. 1129 (Blake v. . Clausen) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Close v. . Potter
49 N.E. 686 (New York Court of Appeals, 1898)
Olmstead v. . Latimer
53 N.E. 5 (New York Court of Appeals, 1899)
Chapman v. . Lynch
51 N.E. 275 (New York Court of Appeals, 1898)