Guggenheim v. Goldberger

City of New York Municipal Court

Guggenheim v. Goldberger

27 N.Y.S. 422, 58 N.Y. St. Rep. 34

DecidedFebruary 8, 1894

StatusPublished

This text of 27 N.Y.S. 422 (Guggenheim v. Goldberger) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering City of New York Municipal Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Guggenheim v. Goldberger, 27 N.Y.S. 422, 58 N.Y. St. Rep. 34 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1894).

Pincite

Opinion

EHRLICH, C. J.

The words “for value” were not a necessary averment in the complaint, for the legal presumption supplied the' inference; hence the failure to deny was in that respect immaterial, and the facts alleged show that there was no intention to admit a transfer for value. Indeed, the issue was that the check was given at the solicitation and for the accommodation of the' plaintiff, without any consideration, and the jury so found. Upon' such an issue and finding the cases cited by the appellant have no relevancy, and the judgment must be affirmed, with costs.

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

EHRLICH, C. J.

The words “for value” were not a necessary averment in the complaint, for the legal presumption supplied the' inference; hence the failure to deny was in that respect immaterial, and the facts alleged show that there was no intention to admit a transfer for value. Indeed, the issue was that the check was given at the solicitation and for the accommodation of the' plaintiff, without any consideration, and the jury so found. Upon' such an issue and finding the cases cited by the appellant have no relevancy, and the judgment must be affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 N.Y.S. 422, 58 N.Y. St. Rep. 34, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/guggenheim-v-goldberger-nynyccityct-1894.