Hellawell v. Garrett Busch & Son, Inc.

248 A.D. 737
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 15, 1936·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Appeal from order granting respondent’s motion for summary judgment under rule 113 of the Rules of Civil Practice, and denying plaintiff's motion for similar relief. Order modified so as to provide that respondent’s motion for summary judgment be denied, and as so modified affirmed, without costs. There are questions of fact to be determined in so far as defendant Bertha Busch’s individual responsibility is concerned. Upon a trial, facts with reference to the financial status of the estate and as to the persons interested therein should be elicited, as well as the facts in connection with the indorsement of the note by said defendant, including conversation between her representative and the representative of the bank as to her liability. Views expressed in Bank of Troy v. Topping (9 Wend. 273; 13 id. 557) may be helpful as indicating some of the issuable facts herein. Lazansky, P. J., Young, Davis, Johnston and Adel, JJ. concur. [157 Misc. 805.]

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

Hellawell v. Garrett Busch & Son, Inc., 248 A.D. 737 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1936).

248 A.D. 737 (Hellawell v. Garrett Busch & Son, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Wander v. White House Furs, Inc.
54 A.D.2d 963 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1976)
Durand v. Lipman
165 Misc. 615 (City of New York Municipal Court, 1937)
City Bank Farmers Trust Co. v. Frankenfelder
166 Misc. 63 (New York Supreme Court, 1937)