Grossman v. Chechila

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Grossman v. Chechila

127 Misc. 151, 215 N.Y.S. 353, 1926 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 935

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedApril 22, 1926

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 127 Misc. 151 (Grossman v. Chechila) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Grossman v. Chechila, 127 Misc. 151, 215 N.Y.S. 353, 1926 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 935 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The jury having found that the promissory note in suit was delivered upon the representation that the payee would produce credentials showing that the making of a contract in regard to an immigrant home was actually authorized by the Hungarian government, and no such credentials having been produced nor proof in respect thereto given, and it appearing by the testimony that the payee transferred the demand note to [152]*152the plaintiff about one year after its date, which was an unreasonable length of time after its issue (Neg. Inst. Law, § 92), it follows that plaintiff was not a holder in due course.

Judgment reversed, with costs, and complaint dismissed on the merits, with costs.

All concur; present, Bijur, Ltdon and Lew, JJ.

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

Per Curiam.

The jury having found that the promissory note in suit was delivered upon the representation that the payee would produce credentials showing that the making of a contract in regard to an immigrant home was actually authorized by the Hungarian government, and no such credentials having been produced nor proof in respect thereto given, and it appearing by the testimony that the payee transferred the demand note to [152]*152the plaintiff about one year after its date, which was an unreasonable length of time after its issue (Neg. Inst. Law, § 92), it follows that plaintiff was not a holder in due course.

Judgment reversed, with costs, and complaint dismissed on the merits, with costs.

All concur; present, Bijur, Ltdon and Lew, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

127 Misc. 151, 215 N.Y.S. 353, 1926 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 935, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/grossman-v-chechila-nyappterm-1926.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack