Eastern New York Marble Co. v. John Lowry, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Eastern New York Marble Co. v. John Lowry, Inc.

235 A.D. 736

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

DecidedMarch 15, 1932

StatusPublished

This text of 235 A.D. 736 (Eastern New York Marble Co. v. John Lowry, Inc.) 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

Eastern New York Marble Co. v. John Lowry, Inc., 235 A.D. 736 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment dismissing plaintiff’s complaint upon the merits and directing judgment in favor of the respondent against the appellant in the sum of $90 costs reversed on the law and a new trial granted, costs to appellant to abide the event. In our opinion, the acceptance of the note of $5,000 at the time of the execution of defendant’s Exhibit E was merely as collateral security and the note was given in consideration of an extension of time of payment by respondent, of one year, and did not release respondent from its original obligation. The question of agency and whether or not agency was disclosed were questions of fact for the jury. Lazansky, P. J., Young, Carswell, Tompkins and Davis, JJ., concur.

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

Judgment dismissing plaintiff’s complaint upon the merits and directing judgment in favor of the respondent against the appellant in the sum of $90 costs reversed on the law and a new trial granted, costs to appellant to abide the event. In our opinion, the acceptance of the note of $5,000 at the time of the execution of defendant’s Exhibit E was merely as collateral security and the note was given in consideration of an extension of time of payment by respondent, of one year, and did not release respondent from its original obligation. The question of agency and whether or not agency was disclosed were questions of fact for the jury. Lazansky, P. J., Young, Carswell, Tompkins and Davis, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

235 A.D. 736, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eastern-new-york-marble-co-v-john-lowry-inc-nyappdiv-1932.