Herold v. Silston
279 A.D. 926, 110 N.Y.S.2d 880, 1952 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5334
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 17, 1952
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases
This text of 279 A.D. 926 (Herold v. Silston) 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
Herold v. Silston, 279 A.D. 926, 110 N.Y.S.2d 880, 1952 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5334 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1952).
Opinion
The renewal note did not effect payment on the prior note, now sued upon, and the payee was, therefore, an owner and holder, entitled to sue and, on proper proof, entitled to recover thereon. Present — Nolan, P. J., Carswell, Adel, Wenzel and Schmidt, JJ.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Dawes v. McKenna
215 A.2d 235 (Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 1965)
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bluebook (online)
279 A.D. 926, 110 N.Y.S.2d 880, 1952 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5334, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/herold-v-silston-nyappdiv-1952.