Hedstbom v. Kahn

123 Misc. 535
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York·Decided June 27, 1924·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The evidence convincingly establishes that the note in suit was given to induce plaintiff to sign the composition agreement which he had theretofore refused to sign, and that the intent and purpose of the giving of the note was to collusively give plaintiff a benefit over other creditors who, with him, signed the composition agreement. The note was, therefore, in its inception fraudulent and void. See White v. Kuntz, 107 N. Y. 518, 525.

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

All concur; present, Guy, Gavegan and Mitchell, JJ.

Judgment reversed and complaint dismissed.

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

Hedstbom v. Kahn, 123 Misc. 535 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1924).

123 Misc. 535 (Hedstbom v. Kahn) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

White v. . Kuntz
14 N.E. 423 (New York Court of Appeals, 1887)