Coward v. Satuloff

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Coward v. Satuloff

250 A.D. 822, 294 N.Y.S. 918, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9131

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

DecidedMarch 10, 1937

StatusPublished

This text of 250 A.D. 822 (Coward v. Satuloff) 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

Coward v. Satuloff, 250 A.D. 822, 294 N.Y.S. 918, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9131 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment and order reversed on the law and a new trial granted, with costs to the appellant to abide the event. Memorandum: The trial court erred in charging the jury to the effect that negligence of the defendant would defeat Ms defense based on fraud (Angerosa v. White Co., 248 App. Div. 425) and in granting respondent’s request to charge “ that if the defendant paid interest of $600 on or about April 3, 1933, with a knowledge of the existence of such mortgage, the jury must find a verdict' for the plaintiff;” payment of interest under such circumstances constituting merely evidence to be considered by the jury on the question. (Hall v. Grays, 227 App. Div. 337; Potts v. Lambie, 138 id. 144.) The trial court properly ruled that the plaintiff had the right to open and close the case (L. O. N. Bank v. Judson, 122 N. Y. 278, 284; Van Vliet v. Kanter, 139 App. Div. 603; Usefof v. Herzenstein, 65 Misc. 45) and properly granted plaintiff’s motion to dismiss defendant’s second defense and counterclaim. (Pers. Prop. Law, § 31; Sophie v. Ford, 230 App. Div. 568.) All concur. (The judgment is for plaintiff in an action on a promissory note. The order denies a motion for a new trial on the minutes.) Present — ■ Sears, P. J., Edgcomb, Thompson, Crosby and Lewis, JJ.

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

Judgment and order reversed on the law and a new trial granted, with costs to the appellant to abide the event. Memorandum: The trial court erred in charging the jury to the effect that negligence of the defendant would defeat Ms defense based on fraud (Angerosa v. White Co., 248 App. Div. 425) and in granting respondent’s request to charge “ that if the defendant paid interest of $600 on or about April 3, 1933, with a knowledge of the existence of such mortgage, the jury must find a verdict' for the plaintiff;” payment of interest under such circumstances constituting merely evidence to be considered by the jury on the question. (Hall v. Grays, 227 App. Div. 337; Potts v. Lambie, 138 id. 144.) The trial court properly ruled that the plaintiff had the right to open and close the case (L. O. N. Bank v. Judson, 122 N. Y. 278, 284; Van Vliet v. Kanter, 139 App. Div. 603; Usefof v. Herzenstein, 65 Misc. 45) and properly granted plaintiff’s motion to dismiss defendant’s second defense and counterclaim. (Pers. Prop. Law, § 31; Sophie v. Ford, 230 App. Div. 568.) All concur. (The judgment is for plaintiff in an action on a promissory note. The order denies a motion for a new trial on the minutes.) Present — ■ Sears, P. J., Edgcomb, Thompson, Crosby and Lewis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

250 A.D. 822, 294 N.Y.S. 918, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9131, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/coward-v-satuloff-nyappdiv-1937.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack