Herold v. Silston
279 A.D. 926, 110 N.Y.S.2d 880, 1952 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5334
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 17, 1952·Published·Cited by 1 cases
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
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).
279 A.D. 926 (Herold v. Silston) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Dawes v. McKenna
215 A.2d 235 (Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 1965)