J. Laskin & Sons, Inc. v. Deitel

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

J. Laskin & Sons, Inc. v. Deitel

152 Misc. 271, 273 N.Y.S. 209, 1934 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1461

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York·Decided June 25, 1934·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The guaranty and the checks, even though read together, were insufficient as a memorandum under the Statute of Frauds (Pers. Prop. Law, § 31). The checks were not signed by the party to be charged and would not establish an agreement to postpone the time of payment merely because they were postdated, without parol evidence of the creditor’s acquiescence in such an arrangement. Therefore, the memorandum was insufficient for the reason that consideration was not sufficiently expressed therein. (Standard Oil Co. v. Koch, 260 N. Y. 150.)

Orders reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements and motions granted.

All concur; present, Callahan, Frankenthaler and Shientag, JJ.

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

Per Curiam.

The guaranty and the checks, even though read together, were insufficient as a memorandum under the Statute of Frauds (Pers. Prop. Law, § 31). The checks were not signed by the party to be charged and would not establish an agreement to postpone the time of payment merely because they were postdated, without parol evidence of the creditor’s acquiescence in such an arrangement. Therefore, the memorandum was insufficient for the reason that consideration was not sufficiently expressed therein. (Standard Oil Co. v. Koch, 260 N. Y. 150.)

Orders reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements and motions granted.

All concur; present, Callahan, Frankenthaler and Shientag, JJ.

J. Laskin & Sons, Inc. v. Deitel, 152 Misc. 271, 273 N.Y.S. 209, 1934 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1461 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1934).

Pincite

152 Misc. 271 (J. Laskin & Sons, Inc. v. Deitel) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related