Industrial Rediscount Corp. v. Kaufman

City of New York Municipal Court

Industrial Rediscount Corp. v. Kaufman

133 Misc. 517, 232 N.Y.S. 197, 1928 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1184

DecidedDecember 14, 1928

StatusPublished

This text of 133 Misc. 517 (Industrial Rediscount Corp. v. Kaufman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering City of New York Municipal Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Industrial Rediscount Corp. v. Kaufman, 133 Misc. 517, 232 N.Y.S. 197, 1928 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1184 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

Leary, J.

I find that the plaintiff was engaged in the purchasing of promissory notes, and not in discounting the same. Section 140 of the Banking Law does not prohibit the purchase of promissory notes, and, this being a penal statute, it must be strictly construed. (American Life Ins. & Trust Co. v. Dobbin, [1843] Lalor’s Supp. 252.)

The judgment entered by the plaintiff against the defendants heretofore is vacated and reinstated as of December 14, 1928, in order to protect the defendants’ right of appeal.

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

Leary, J.

I find that the plaintiff was engaged in the purchasing of promissory notes, and not in discounting the same. Section 140 of the Banking Law does not prohibit the purchase of promissory notes, and, this being a penal statute, it must be strictly construed. (American Life Ins. & Trust Co. v. Dobbin, [1843] Lalor’s Supp. 252.)

The judgment entered by the plaintiff against the defendants heretofore is vacated and reinstated as of December 14, 1928, in order to protect the defendants’ right of appeal.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

133 Misc. 517, 232 N.Y.S. 197, 1928 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1184, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/industrial-rediscount-corp-v-kaufman-nynyccityct-1928.