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

The Superior Court of New York City·Decided March 3, 1879·Published

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.

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

Pincite

13 Jones & S. 576 (Farmer's & Mechanic's National Bank v. Hazeltine) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related