Hare & Chase, Inc. v. Volansky

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Hare & Chase, Inc. v. Volansky

127 Misc. 26, 215 N.Y.S. 168, 1926 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 889

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedApril 12, 1926

StatusPublished

This text of 127 Misc. 26 (Hare & Chase, Inc. v. Volansky) 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

Hare & Chase, Inc. v. Volansky, 127 Misc. 26, 215 N.Y.S. 168, 1926 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 889 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Meyers Motor Car Company, Inc., on November 11, 1924, sold a car to defendant under a conditional sales agreement, in conformity with which defendant made ten promissory notes of thirty-five dollars and sixty-four cents each. On the same day the Meyers Company assigned the agreement, and presumably indorsed the notes to plaintiff.

Defendant undertook to prove that subsequently the agreement between the Meyers Company and himself had been abrogated in favor of the purchase of a different car on different terms, but all such evidence was excluded on the ground that it took place after the assignment of the first contract and notes of plaintiff. As there was no evidence whatsoever that defendant had been notified or had become aware of the assignment, the judgment was erroneous - since this action was brought upon the agreement, and plaintiff took the assignment subject to all of defendant’s equities thereunder.

Judgment reversed and new trial granted, with thirty dollars costs to appellant to abide the event.

All concur; present, Bijur, Lydon and Levy, JJ.

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

Per Curiam.

Meyers Motor Car Company, Inc., on November 11, 1924, sold a car to defendant under a conditional sales agreement, in conformity with which defendant made ten promissory notes of thirty-five dollars and sixty-four cents each. On the same day the Meyers Company assigned the agreement, and presumably indorsed the notes to plaintiff.

Defendant undertook to prove that subsequently the agreement between the Meyers Company and himself had been abrogated in favor of the purchase of a different car on different terms, but all such evidence was excluded on the ground that it took place after the assignment of the first contract and notes of plaintiff. As there was no evidence whatsoever that defendant had been notified or had become aware of the assignment, the judgment was erroneous - since this action was brought upon the agreement, and plaintiff took the assignment subject to all of defendant’s equities thereunder.

Judgment reversed and new trial granted, with thirty dollars costs to appellant to abide the event.

All concur; present, Bijur, Lydon and Levy, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

127 Misc. 26, 215 N.Y.S. 168, 1926 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 889, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hare-chase-inc-v-volansky-nyappterm-1926.