Farley v. Overbury

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Farley v. Overbury

254 A.D. 739, 3 N.Y.S.2d 990, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7416

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

DecidedMay 2, 1938

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 254 A.D. 739 (Farley v. Overbury) 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

Farley v. Overbury, 254 A.D. 739, 3 N.Y.S.2d 990, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7416 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint of the assignee of certain promissory notes, and for summary judgment, on the ground that the plaintiff was not the [740]*740real party in interest. The plaintiff, in opposing the motion, produced an assignment valid on its face, showed the circumstances of the transfer and that the notes were delivered to him and had been continuously in his possession ever since the assignment. This assignment was not in the record on a prior appeal (252 App. Div. 882), and in other respects additional facts now appear. Order denying motion to dismiss affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. (See Spencer v. Standard C. & M. Corp., 237 H. Y. 479, 480-481; 2 Carmody N. Y. Practice, p. 806, § 502.) Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Davis, Johnston and Adel, JJ., concur.

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

Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint of the assignee of certain promissory notes, and for summary judgment, on the ground that the plaintiff was not the [740]*740real party in interest. The plaintiff, in opposing the motion, produced an assignment valid on its face, showed the circumstances of the transfer and that the notes were delivered to him and had been continuously in his possession ever since the assignment. This assignment was not in the record on a prior appeal (252 App. Div. 882), and in other respects additional facts now appear. Order denying motion to dismiss affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. (See Spencer v. Standard C. & M. Corp., 237 H. Y. 479, 480-481; 2 Carmody N. Y. Practice, p. 806, § 502.) Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Davis, Johnston and Adel, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

254 A.D. 739, 3 N.Y.S.2d 990, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7416, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/farley-v-overbury-nyappdiv-1938.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack