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

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJune 17, 1941

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 176 Misc. 753 (Family Finance Corp. v. Miick) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

176 Misc. 753, 28 N.Y.S.2d 830, 1941 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1942, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/family-finance-corp-v-miick-nyappterm-1941.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack