Carpenter v. Cummings

20 Misc. 661, 46 N.Y.S. 252
City of New York Municipal Court·Decided July 15, 1897·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Van Wyck, Ch. J.

The plaintiff, an attorney and counselor, sues as the assignee, by written assignment from the indorsee of the payee of the note made by defendant, and .one of defendant’s alleged defenses was, that plaintiff, in violation of section 73 of the Code, bought, or was interested in buying, the note with the intent and for the purpose of bringing an action thereon. If the plaintiff [662] did. so purchase the note.or was so interested in its purchase, and defendant had made any proof which tended to show that plaintiff had so done, a question would have been raised which should go to the jury for determination. But defendant was, by a number of adverse' rulings, to which exception was duly taken, prevented from making such proof, and for these errors alone, the judgment must be reversed. Such alleged defense, if. prqven at trial, to the satisfaction of the jury, must compel a verdict for defendant. Browning v. Marvin, 100 N. Y. 144. Judgment and order reversed -and new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide the event.

McCarthy, J., concurs.

Judgment-and order reversed and new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide the event.

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

Carpenter v. Cummings, 20 Misc. 661, 46 N.Y.S. 252 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1897).

20 Misc. 661 (Carpenter v. Cummings) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Roslyn Savings Bank v. Jones
69 Misc. 2d 733 (New York Supreme Court, 1972)
Fairchild Hiller Corp. v. McDonnell Douglas Corp.
270 N.E.2d 691 (New York Court of Appeals, 1971)
Sprung v. Jaffe
147 N.E.2d 6 (New York Court of Appeals, 1957)