Bringman v. Von Glahn

71 A.D. 537, 75 N.Y.S. 845
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 15, 1902
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 71 A.D. 537 (Bringman v. Von Glahn) 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
Bringman v. Von Glahn, 71 A.D. 537, 75 N.Y.S. 845 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1902).

Opinion

Jenks, J.:

This action is upon a promissory note made by the defendant in favor of the intestate of the plaintiffs. The defendant admitted the making and delivery of the note, the non-payment thereof and the status of the plaintiffs. He denied that the note was given for value or that the intestate ever gave any consideration therefor. His counterclaim was withdrawn because the subject thereof had been embodied in a claim filed against the estate. The plaintiffs read the note in evidence and rested, and thereupon the defendants offered certain testimony. The learned court gave judgment for the defendant, dismissing the complaint on the merits. The instrument imported consideration. (Neg. Inst. Law [Laws of 1897, chap. 612] § 50 ; Hegeman v. Moon, 131 N. Y. 462, 467.) When [538]*538the plaintiffs read it in evidence they became entitled to the presumption . that it was “ a valid obligation based upon a good and legal consideration, and the burden of showing that there was a want of consideration rested upon the defendant;” (Durland v. Durland, 153 N. Y. 67, 74, et. seq.) They could, therefore, then safely rest. If the defendant had offered any evidence that -showed or tended to show want of consideration, then it was incumbent upon the plaintiffs to show by a fair preponderance of evidence upon the whole case that there was consideration. But as the testimony offered by the defendant did not show -or tend to show any failure of consideration, the judgment must be reversed and a new trial ordered, costs to abide the event.

All concurred.

Judgment of the Municipal Court reversed and new trial ordered, costs to abide the event.

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

Related

First National Bank v. Doschades
279 P. 416 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1929)
Kemppainen v. Suomi Temperance Society
275 P. 680 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1929)
James Conforti Construction Co v. Neek Realty Corp.
125 Misc. 876 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 1925)
First State Bank v. Radke
199 N.W. 930 (North Dakota Supreme Court, 1924)
American National Bank v. Kerley
220 P. 116 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1923)
Hardinge v. United States Zinc Co.
171 A.D. 742 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1916)
Bank of Gresham v. Walch
147 P. 534 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1915)
Revel Realty & Securities Co. v. Maxwell
115 N.Y.S. 1033 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 1909)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
71 A.D. 537, 75 N.Y.S. 845, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bringman-v-von-glahn-nyappdiv-1902.