Cohn v. Trade Bank

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Cohn v. Trade Bank

146 Misc. 771, 262 N.Y.S. 797, 1933 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1532

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York·Decided March 9, 1933·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The indorsement “ for deposit ” by the plaintiff’s assignors was sufficient to restrict further negotiation of the check (Neg. Inst. Law, § 66; Johnson v. Donnell, 90 N. Y. 1; Haskell v. Avery, 181 Mass. 106.) Since the defendant bank had already disregarded the restrictive indorsement when the plaintiff’s assignors learned that the check had been misappropriated, they were under no duty to notify the bank of their interest in the proceeds:

Judgment reversed, with thirty dollars costs, and judgment directed for plaintiff for the amount demanded in the complaint.

All concur; present, Lydon, Frankenthaler and Untermyer, JJ.

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

Per Curiam.

The indorsement “ for deposit ” by the plaintiff’s assignors was sufficient to restrict further negotiation of the check (Neg. Inst. Law, § 66; Johnson v. Donnell, 90 N. Y. 1; Haskell v. Avery, 181 Mass. 106.) Since the defendant bank had already disregarded the restrictive indorsement when the plaintiff’s assignors learned that the check had been misappropriated, they were under no duty to notify the bank of their interest in the proceeds:

Judgment reversed, with thirty dollars costs, and judgment directed for plaintiff for the amount demanded in the complaint.

All concur; present, Lydon, Frankenthaler and Untermyer, JJ.

Cohn v. Trade Bank, 146 Misc. 771, 262 N.Y.S. 797, 1933 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1532 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1933).

Pincite

146 Misc. 771 (Cohn v. Trade Bank) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related