Hartenstein v. Vesta Manufacturing Corp.

136 Misc. 212, 239 N.Y.S. 331, 1929 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1071
CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York
DecidedOctober 11, 1929
StatusPublished

This text of 136 Misc. 212 (Hartenstein v. Vesta Manufacturing Corp.) 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
Hartenstein v. Vesta Manufacturing Corp., 136 Misc. 212, 239 N.Y.S. 331, 1929 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1071 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1929).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

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

The action was upon a promissory note indorsed by the defendant., [213]*213With its answer the defendant served an affidavit in conformity with section 368 of the Civil Practice Act, stating that the defendant did not receive due notice of presentment of the note nor was demand made upon it for payment thereof. The certificate of the notary therefore, was not competent. (Civ. Prac. Act, § 368.) Therefore, the burden was upon the plaintiff of proving presentment by common-law evidence. (Smith v. Leiman, 133 N. Y. Supp. 1001; 2 Daniel Neg. Inst. § 961.) This the plaintiff failed to do.

All concur; present, Cropsey, MacCrate and Lewis, JJ.

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

Related

Smith v. Leiman
133 N.Y.S. 1001 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 1912)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
136 Misc. 212, 239 N.Y.S. 331, 1929 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1071, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hartenstein-v-vesta-manufacturing-corp-nyappterm-1929.