Jersey Carpenters, Inc. v. Schmittmeyer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Jersey Carpenters, Inc. v. Schmittmeyer

6 A.D.2d 700, 174 N.Y.S.2d 97, 1958 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5972

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

DecidedMay 12, 1958

StatusPublished

This text of 6 A.D.2d 700 (Jersey Carpenters, Inc. v. Schmittmeyer) 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

Jersey Carpenters, Inc. v. Schmittmeyer, 6 A.D.2d 700, 174 N.Y.S.2d 97, 1958 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5972 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1958).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action on promissory notes, the appeal is from a judgment dismissing the complaint on the merits at the end of the plaintiff’s case. Judgment reversed and a new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide the event. We find in the record presented evidence sufficient to establish, prima facie, a valid consideration for the notes which are the subject of the action, and we are unable to agree that the evidence establishes, as a matter of law, lack of authority on the part of plaintiff’s vice-president, who verified the [701]*701complaint, to prosecute the action in the corporate name, or that affirmative action by the board of directors was necessary to authorize such action by him. Nolan, P. J., Wenzel, Beldock, Ughetta and Hallinan, JJ., concur.

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

In an action on promissory notes, the appeal is from a judgment dismissing the complaint on the merits at the end of the plaintiff’s case. Judgment reversed and a new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide the event. We find in the record presented evidence sufficient to establish, prima facie, a valid consideration for the notes which are the subject of the action, and we are unable to agree that the evidence establishes, as a matter of law, lack of authority on the part of plaintiff’s vice-president, who verified the [701]*701complaint, to prosecute the action in the corporate name, or that affirmative action by the board of directors was necessary to authorize such action by him. Nolan, P. J., Wenzel, Beldock, Ughetta and Hallinan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 A.D.2d 700, 174 N.Y.S.2d 97, 1958 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5972, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jersey-carpenters-inc-v-schmittmeyer-nyappdiv-1958.