Common Finance Corp. v. Balsam

133 Misc. 512
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York·Decided October 15, 1928·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Judgment unanimously reversed upon the law, and new trial granted, with thirty dollars costs to appellants to abide the event.

On this appeal the respondent states that it is incorporated under the Stock Corporation Law. On the trial the appellants attempted to show that the respondent was thus incorporated, and that in violation of the Banking Law (§ 140) it had as a business discounted notes, not only for its own stockholders, but for others. If the respondent was so engaged, it could not recover on the note sued upon here. (New York State Loan & Trust Co. v. Helmer, 77 N. Y. 64; Meserole Securities Co. v. Cosman, 131 Misc. 361; Royal Diamond Co., Inc., v. Ostrin, 133 id, 555.)

The appellants should have been permitted, moreover, to have given proof as to the defense of usury. Whether that defense is good can be determined only after all the facts are in the record.

All concur; present, Cropsey, MacCrate and Lewis, JJ.

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

Common Finance Corp. v. Balsam, 133 Misc. 512 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1928).

133 Misc. 512 (Common Finance Corp. v. Balsam) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

N.Y. State Loan and Trust Co. v. . Helmer
77 N.Y. 64 (New York Court of Appeals, 1879)
Meserole Securities Co. v. Cosman
131 Misc. 361 (New York Supreme Court, 1928)