Isaacs v. Kobre

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Isaacs v. Kobre

145 N.Y.S. 919

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJanuary 16, 1914

StatusPublished

This text of 145 N.Y.S. 919 (Isaacs v. Kobre) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Isaacs v. Kobre, 145 N.Y.S. 919 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

BIJUR, J.

Plaintiff sues to recover back $1,000 paid to defendant under the following circumstances: Plaintiff was the indorser upon a promissory note dated February 3, 1913, payable three months after date, namely, May 3, 1913. The complaint alleges that defendant having become the holder of the note, on or about the 3d day of June, informed plaintiff to that effect, and added that the note was payable on that day, namely, June 3a. Plaintiff thereupon paid the defendant; but, when the note was delivered to him, he found that it was due May 3d. It is not claimed that defendant willfully misrepresented the facts, but only that there was a mutual mistake of fact.

[920]*920Under these circumstances, it is evident that on June 3d plaintiff had been discharged of all liability as indorser by reason of the failure of the holder to protest the note at the time it was due. He therefore paid defendant $1,000 under the belief of both parties, due to their mutual mistake of fact, that he was liable, when, as a matter of fact, he was not, and is entitled to recover back this sum of which he has been unjustly deprived and by which the defendant has been unjustly enriched. See Franklin Bank v. Raymond, 3 Wend. 69, citing Milnes v. Duncan, 6 B. & C. 671.

Judgment reversed, and a new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide the event. All concur.

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

BIJUR, J.

Plaintiff sues to recover back $1,000 paid to defendant under the following circumstances: Plaintiff was the indorser upon a promissory note dated February 3, 1913, payable three months after date, namely, May 3, 1913. The complaint alleges that defendant having become the holder of the note, on or about the 3d day of June, informed plaintiff to that effect, and added that the note was payable on that day, namely, June 3a. Plaintiff thereupon paid the defendant; but, when the note was delivered to him, he found that it was due May 3d. It is not claimed that defendant willfully misrepresented the facts, but only that there was a mutual mistake of fact.

[920]*920Under these circumstances, it is evident that on June 3d plaintiff had been discharged of all liability as indorser by reason of the failure of the holder to protest the note at the time it was due. He therefore paid defendant $1,000 under the belief of both parties, due to their mutual mistake of fact, that he was liable, when, as a matter of fact, he was not, and is entitled to recover back this sum of which he has been unjustly deprived and by which the defendant has been unjustly enriched. See Franklin Bank v. Raymond, 3 Wend. 69, citing Milnes v. Duncan, 6 B. & C. 671.

Judgment reversed, and a new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide the event. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

145 N.Y.S. 919, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/isaacs-v-kobre-nyappterm-1914.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack