Canning v. Lane

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Canning v. Lane

139 N.Y.S. 884

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJanuary 31, 1913

StatusPublished

This text of 139 N.Y.S. 884 (Canning v. Lane) 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

Canning v. Lane, 139 N.Y.S. 884 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

A motion for reargument herein was duly granted.

[1] Plaintiffs, as assignees of the payee of a note made by defendant, bring this action against the maker to recover the amount named therein. Upon the trial the defendant claimed that the plaintiffs had given no consideration to the payee fpr the note. Assuming this to be true, it was immaterial. The plaintiffs were entitled to the same rights that their assignor possessed.

[2] Upon appeal the defendant claims that the note was originally without consideration. There is, however, no proof in the record in support of this contention. The note was produced, and upon its face shows that it was given for value. Under these circumstances, the court below should have awarded judgment for the plaintiffs.

Judgment reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to appellants to abide the event.

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

PER CURIAM.

A motion for reargument herein was duly granted.

[1] Plaintiffs, as assignees of the payee of a note made by defendant, bring this action against the maker to recover the amount named therein. Upon the trial the defendant claimed that the plaintiffs had given no consideration to the payee fpr the note. Assuming this to be true, it was immaterial. The plaintiffs were entitled to the same rights that their assignor possessed.

[2] Upon appeal the defendant claims that the note was originally without consideration. There is, however, no proof in the record in support of this contention. The note was produced, and upon its face shows that it was given for value. Under these circumstances, the court below should have awarded judgment for the plaintiffs.

Judgment reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to appellants to abide the event.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

139 N.Y.S. 884, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/canning-v-lane-nyappterm-1913.