In Re the Accounting of Hooper

New York Court of Appeals

In Re the Accounting of Hooper

18 N.E.2d 656, 279 N.Y. 449, 1939 N.Y. LEXIS 877

New York Court of Appeals·Decided January 10, 1939·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We are of opinion that the inference of consideration from the phrase “ For value received ” on the face of each of the notes was not necessarily repelled by the remainder of the text of the instruments themselves. (Matter of Taylor, 251 N. Y. 257; Strickland v. Henry, 175 N. Y. 372.)

The order of the Appellate Division and the decree of the Surrogate’s Court should be reversed and the matter remitted to the Surrogate’s Court for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion, with costs in all courts to abide the event, payable out of the estate.

Crane, Ch. J., Htjbbs, Loughran and Finch, JJ., concur; Lehman, O’Brien and Rippey, JJ., dissent.

Ordered accordingly.

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

Per Curiam.

We are of opinion that the inference of consideration from the phrase “ For value received ” on the face of each of the notes was not necessarily repelled by the remainder of the text of the instruments themselves. (Matter of Taylor, 251 N. Y. 257; Strickland v. Henry, 175 N. Y. 372.)

The order of the Appellate Division and the decree of the Surrogate’s Court should be reversed and the matter remitted to the Surrogate’s Court for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion, with costs in all courts to abide the event, payable out of the estate.

Crane, Ch. J., Htjbbs, Loughran and Finch, JJ., concur; Lehman, O’Brien and Rippey, JJ., dissent.

Ordered accordingly.

In Re the Accounting of Hooper, 18 N.E.2d 656, 279 N.Y. 449, 1939 N.Y. LEXIS 877 (N.Y. 1939).

Pincite

18 N.E.2d 656 (In Re the Accounting of Hooper) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related