Hoffay v. Hershenstein

232 A.D. 149, 249 N.Y.S. 167, 1931 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13752
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 10, 1931
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 232 A.D. 149 (Hoffay v. Hershenstein) 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
Hoffay v. Hershenstein, 232 A.D. 149, 249 N.Y.S. 167, 1931 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13752 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1931).

Opinion

Sherhan, J.

The action is upon a series of notes made by defendant to the order of plaintiff, under a written agreement, pursuant to which they were issued and which contains an acceleration clause.

The answer pleads, among other things, a failure of consideration. [150]*150This issue as well as an issue of fraud likewise tendered by the answer was submitted to the jury. The trial court instructed the jury that the burden of proof of establishing both issues to the satisfaction of the jury rested upon defendant. In so far as the issue of lack of consideration is concerned, the charge Was erroneous, for the burden of proof to establish consideration was upon plaintiff, the notes themselves being only presumptive evidence of consideration. (Hardinge v. United States Zinc Co., 171 App. Div. 742; Abrahamson v. Steele, 176 id. 865.)

But this error is of no avail to appellant, because no facts were presented upon which a jury might have determined that issue in his favor. The record clearly discloses that there was no evidence showing an absence or failure of consideration to rebut the presumption of consideration carried by the notes themselves.

The determination appealed from should be affirmed, with costs.

Finch, P. J., McAvoy, Martin and O’Malley, JJ., concur.

Determination affirmed, with costs and disbursements.

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

Related

Carrara v. Carrara
29 Misc. 2d 907 (New York Supreme Court, 1961)
In re the Accounting of Hays
197 Misc. 678 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1949)
Bay Parkway National Bank v. Shalom
146 Misc. 431 (New York Supreme Court, 1932)
H. Rubenstein Co. v. Tucker
142 Misc. 626 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 1932)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
232 A.D. 149, 249 N.Y.S. 167, 1931 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13752, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hoffay-v-hershenstein-nyappdiv-1931.