Family Finance Corp. v. Miick

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Family Finance Corp. v. Miick

176 Misc. 753, 28 N.Y.S.2d 830, 1941 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1942

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York·Decided June 17, 1941·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The statement issued by the plaintiff violated the provisions of section 353 of the Banking Law in that it did not contain a clear and distinct statement as to the nature of the security for the loan. The statement that the loan was secured by “ H. H. G.” is unintelligible and meaningless. Furthermore, the statement failed to refer to the fact that the loan was secured by assignments of wages executed by the defendants. The loan was, therefore void under the provisions of section 358 of the same statute.

Judgment reversed, with thirty dollars costs, and judgment directed for the defendants, with costs.

All concur. Present — McCook, Miller and McLaughlin, JJ.

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

Per Curiam.

The statement issued by the plaintiff violated the provisions of section 353 of the Banking Law in that it did not contain a clear and distinct statement as to the nature of the security for the loan. The statement that the loan was secured by “ H. H. G.” is unintelligible and meaningless. Furthermore, the statement failed to refer to the fact that the loan was secured by assignments of wages executed by the defendants. The loan was, therefore void under the provisions of section 358 of the same statute.

Judgment reversed, with thirty dollars costs, and judgment directed for the defendants, with costs.

All concur. Present — McCook, Miller and McLaughlin, JJ.

Family Finance Corp. v. Miick, 176 Misc. 753, 28 N.Y.S.2d 830, 1941 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1942 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1941).

Pincite

176 Misc. 753 (Family Finance Corp. v. Miick) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related