Harling v. Bache & Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Harling v. Bache & Co.

18 A.D.2d 963, 238 N.Y.S.2d 494, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4274

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

DecidedFebruary 28, 1963

StatusPublished

This text of 18 A.D.2d 963 (Harling v. Bache & 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

Harling v. Bache & Co., 18 A.D.2d 963, 238 N.Y.S.2d 494, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4274 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed, without costs of this appeal to either party. Memorandum: For the purpose of passing upon the [964]*964plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, we take account of the third-party defendant’s answer and affidavit. However, we do not at this time pass upon the sufficiency of the original defendant’s answer to enable it to raise the defense of the delivery of the securities to the holder of paramount title (Curry v. Mackenzie, 239 N. Y. 267, 272; 5 N. Y. Jur., Bailment, §§ 31, 76; 4 Am. Jur., Pl. and Pr. Forms No. 4:128.). (Appeal by plaintiffs from order of Erie Special Term denying plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment; also appeal by defendant and third-party plaintiff from part of order which denied its cross motion for summary judgment.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Goldman, Halpem and Henry, JJ.

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

Order unanimously affirmed, without costs of this appeal to either party. Memorandum: For the purpose of passing upon the [964]*964plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, we take account of the third-party defendant’s answer and affidavit. However, we do not at this time pass upon the sufficiency of the original defendant’s answer to enable it to raise the defense of the delivery of the securities to the holder of paramount title (Curry v. Mackenzie, 239 N. Y. 267, 272; 5 N. Y. Jur., Bailment, §§ 31, 76; 4 Am. Jur., Pl. and Pr. Forms No. 4:128.). (Appeal by plaintiffs from order of Erie Special Term denying plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment; also appeal by defendant and third-party plaintiff from part of order which denied its cross motion for summary judgment.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Goldman, Halpem and Henry, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

18 A.D.2d 963, 238 N.Y.S.2d 494, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4274, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harling-v-bache-co-nyappdiv-1963.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack