Fischer v. Plum
This text of 273 A.D. 818 (Fischer v. Plum) 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.
Opinion
Order denying plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment reversed on the law and the facts, with $10 costs and disbursements, and the motion granted, with $10 costs. Defendant did not show by evidentiary facts that plaintiff had any knowledge of the alleged false and fraudulent representations made by the payee of the note, from whom plaintiff obtained it for value, before maturity and in good faith and, therefore, did not establish a triable issue with respect to whether or not plaintiff was a holder in due course. (Bogers v. Beynolds, 226 App. Div. 813.) Lewis, P. J., Carswell, Johnston, Sneed and Wenzel, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
273 A.D. 818, 76 N.Y.S.2d 85, 1948 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4782, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fischer-v-plum-nyappdiv-1948.