Greenberg v. President & Directors of Manhattan Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Greenberg v. President & Directors of Manhattan Co.

255 A.D. 869, 7 N.Y.S.2d 752, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5711

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

DecidedNovember 18, 1938

StatusPublished

This text of 255 A.D. 869 (Greenberg v. President & Directors of Manhattan Co.) 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

Greenberg v. President & Directors of Manhattan Co., 255 A.D. 869, 7 N.Y.S.2d 752, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5711 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1938).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action brought to recover the amount of five cheeks alleged to have been paid by respondent bank upon forged indorsements, judgment dismissing complaint at the close of plaintiffs’ case reversed on the law and a new trial granted, with costs to appellants to abide the event. The plaintiffs made out a prima facie case. There was sufficient evidence that appellants had received nothing of value in exchange for their cheeks and were consequently damaged. The trial court erred in striking out plaintiffs’ Exhibits 15-18, inclusive, which were competent evidence in tracing the source of the goods delivered under the invoices' from the alleged Leo Leiehner. There was sufficient evidence also of the nonexistence of the payee of the cheeks. Appellants were not required to prove that [870]*870no such person as Leo Leichner existed anywhere. It was enough for them to submit evidence of the non-existence of a person bearing that name and answering the description, as to occupation and place of business, which was furnished the drawers of the cheeks. If upon another trial the non-existence of the payee is established as a matter of fact or of mixed law and fact, it will follow that the indorsements were forgeries. We do not pass on the question of respondent’s liability if it should appear that a person actually named Leo Leichner, but not the Leo Leichner intended by plaintiffs when the checks were drawn, indorsed the cheeks. There is no evidence of such facts in this record. Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Davis, Johnston and Close, JJ., concur.

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

In an action brought to recover the amount of five cheeks alleged to have been paid by respondent bank upon forged indorsements, judgment dismissing complaint at the close of plaintiffs’ case reversed on the law and a new trial granted, with costs to appellants to abide the event. The plaintiffs made out a prima facie case. There was sufficient evidence that appellants had received nothing of value in exchange for their cheeks and were consequently damaged. The trial court erred in striking out plaintiffs’ Exhibits 15-18, inclusive, which were competent evidence in tracing the source of the goods delivered under the invoices' from the alleged Leo Leiehner. There was sufficient evidence also of the nonexistence of the payee of the cheeks. Appellants were not required to prove that [870]*870no such person as Leo Leichner existed anywhere. It was enough for them to submit evidence of the non-existence of a person bearing that name and answering the description, as to occupation and place of business, which was furnished the drawers of the cheeks. If upon another trial the non-existence of the payee is established as a matter of fact or of mixed law and fact, it will follow that the indorsements were forgeries. We do not pass on the question of respondent’s liability if it should appear that a person actually named Leo Leichner, but not the Leo Leichner intended by plaintiffs when the checks were drawn, indorsed the cheeks. There is no evidence of such facts in this record. Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Davis, Johnston and Close, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

255 A.D. 869, 7 N.Y.S.2d 752, 1938 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5711, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/greenberg-v-president-directors-of-manhattan-co-nyappdiv-1938.