Brooks v. Slawson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Brooks v. Slawson

256 A.D. 1052, 10 N.Y.S.2d 878, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6028

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMarch 22, 1939

StatusPublished

This text of 256 A.D. 1052 (Brooks v. Slawson) 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

Brooks v. Slawson, 256 A.D. 1052, 10 N.Y.S.2d 878, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6028 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

Order reversed on the law, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion to strike out plaintiff’s reply and for summary judgment on defendant’s counterclaim granted, with ten dollars costs. Memorandum: The note upon which the counterclaim is based was unquestionably an accommodation note but we find no substantial evidence that the plaintiff’s testator’was incompetent at the time the transaction was had in which the note was signed, and delivered. We find no substantial evidence in the affidavits to sustain any of the defenses alleged in the plaintiff’s reply. All concur. (The order denies defendant’s motion to strike out plaintiff's reply and for judgment on defendant’s counterclaim, in an action in conversion.) Present — Sears, P. J., Crosby, Lewis, Cunningham and Dowling, JJ.

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

Order reversed on the law, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion to strike out plaintiff’s reply and for summary judgment on defendant’s counterclaim granted, with ten dollars costs. Memorandum: The note upon which the counterclaim is based was unquestionably an accommodation note but we find no substantial evidence that the plaintiff’s testator’was incompetent at the time the transaction was had in which the note was signed, and delivered. We find no substantial evidence in the affidavits to sustain any of the defenses alleged in the plaintiff’s reply. All concur. (The order denies defendant’s motion to strike out plaintiff's reply and for judgment on defendant’s counterclaim, in an action in conversion.) Present — Sears, P. J., Crosby, Lewis, Cunningham and Dowling, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

256 A.D. 1052, 10 N.Y.S.2d 878, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6028, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brooks-v-slawson-nyappdiv-1939.