Felter v. Shacknow

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Felter v. Shacknow

247 A.D. 903

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

DecidedApril 15, 1936

StatusPublished

This text of 247 A.D. 903 (Felter v. Shacknow) 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

Felter v. Shacknow, 247 A.D. 903 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to foreclose a mortgage the plaintiff joined defendant Hazelwood on an alleged written guaranty of payment of the principal and interest. He moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that it did not as to him state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. This defendant is an attorney and the writing is in his own language. We construe it on its face as a guaranty of payment and not of collection. It may contain a limitation as to the period of the guaranty as existing only as long as the relation of attorney and client existed, depending upon circumstances not now disclosed. We do not pass on that question. The complaint on its face states a cause of action against this defendant. Order denying motion to dismiss the complaint affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, with leave to defendant Hazelwood to answer within ten days from the entry of the order hereon. Lazansky, P. J., Young, Davis, Johnston and Adel, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to foreclose a mortgage the plaintiff joined defendant Hazelwood on an alleged written guaranty of payment of the principal and interest. He moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that it did not as to him state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. This defendant is an attorney and the writing is in his own language. We construe it on its face as a guaranty of payment and not of collection. It may contain a limitation as to the period of the guaranty as existing only as long as the relation of attorney and client existed, depending upon circumstances not now disclosed. We do not pass on that question. The complaint on its face states a cause of action against this defendant. Order denying motion to dismiss the complaint affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, with leave to defendant Hazelwood to answer within ten days from the entry of the order hereon. Lazansky, P. J., Young, Davis, Johnston and Adel, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

247 A.D. 903, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/felter-v-shacknow-nyappdiv-1936.