Hoffman v. Manufacturers Trust Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hoffman v. Manufacturers Trust Co.

252 A.D. 495, 299 N.Y.S. 674, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5700

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedNovember 19, 1937

StatusPublished

This text of 252 A.D. 495 (Hoffman v. Manufacturers Trust Co.) 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

Hoffman v. Manufacturers Trust Co., 252 A.D. 495, 299 N.Y.S. 674, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5700 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff sues for damages for breach of an alleged agreement respecting the sale of certain securities formerly held by defendant as collateral for a promissory note. A prior action was brought against plaintiff by a subsidiary of the present defendant, as assignee of the same note, to recover the balance due after [496]*496the sale of these securities. In the prior action this plaintiff set forth as a defense substantially the same facts concerning the sale of the collateral that he now makes the basis of his complaint. Judgment was rendered against him in the prior suit. Under the circumstances, we deem the earlier judgment an estoppel.

The judgment and order appealed from should, therefore, be affirmed, with costs.

Present — Martin, P. J., Glennon, Untermyer, Dore and Callahan, JJ.

Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with costs.

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

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff sues for damages for breach of an alleged agreement respecting the sale of certain securities formerly held by defendant as collateral for a promissory note. A prior action was brought against plaintiff by a subsidiary of the present defendant, as assignee of the same note, to recover the balance due after [496]*496the sale of these securities. In the prior action this plaintiff set forth as a defense substantially the same facts concerning the sale of the collateral that he now makes the basis of his complaint. Judgment was rendered against him in the prior suit. Under the circumstances, we deem the earlier judgment an estoppel.

The judgment and order appealed from should, therefore, be affirmed, with costs.

Present — Martin, P. J., Glennon, Untermyer, Dore and Callahan, JJ.

Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

252 A.D. 495, 299 N.Y.S. 674, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5700, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hoffman-v-manufacturers-trust-co-nyappdiv-1937.