Farmer's & Mechanic's National Bank v. Hazeltine

The Superior Court of New York City

Farmer's & Mechanic's National Bank v. Hazeltine

13 Jones & S. 576

CourtThe Superior Court of New York City

DecidedMarch 3, 1879

StatusPublished

This text of 13 Jones & S. 576 (Farmer's & Mechanic's National Bank v. Hazeltine) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering The Superior Court of New York City primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Farmer's & Mechanic's National Bank v. Hazeltine, 13 Jones & S. 576 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1879).

Pincite

Opinion

Van Vorst, J.,

wrote for affirmance with costs, holding in substance:—This case involves the same principles as are presented in Farmer’s & Mechanic’s National Bank of Buffalo v. Logan, 74 N. Y. 568, and in Farmer’s & Mechanic’s National Bank of Buffalo v. Atkinson, Id. 587. The points urged by counsel for appellants are fully answered by the opinions in those cases. The maxim, nemo dab quod non habeb, applies.

Speir, J., concurred.

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

Van Vorst, J.,

wrote for affirmance with costs, holding in substance:—This case involves the same principles as are presented in Farmer’s & Mechanic’s National Bank of Buffalo v. Logan, 74 N. Y. 568, and in Farmer’s & Mechanic’s National Bank of Buffalo v. Atkinson, Id. 587. The points urged by counsel for appellants are fully answered by the opinions in those cases. The maxim, nemo dab quod non habeb, applies.

Speir, J., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

13 Jones & S. 576, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/farmers-mechanics-national-bank-v-hazeltine-nysuperctnyc-1879.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack