Kanevsky v. Klein

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Kanevsky v. Klein

109 N.Y.S. 816

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedApril 10, 1908

StatusPublished

This text of 109 N.Y.S. 816 (Kanevsky v. Klein) 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

Kanevsky v. Klein, 109 N.Y.S. 816 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1908).

Pincite

Opinion

GILDERSLEEVE, P. J.

This action was brought upon a promissory note made payable to plaintiff’s assignor, one Pollock, and indorsed by him, and signed, “J. Klein, H. Eevinthan, Manager.” The answer was a general denial, and the case was tried before a jury.

At the close of the case the trial justice directed a verdict in favor of the plaintiff. The defendant objected to such direction, and asked to go to the jury upon the questions of fact. The only question at issue was whether or not Eevinthan, who signed defendant’s name to the note, was authorized to do so; and upon this question there was a conflict of evidence, and a direction of a verdict was therefore error.

Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered, 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

GILDERSLEEVE, P. J.

This action was brought upon a promissory note made payable to plaintiff’s assignor, one Pollock, and indorsed by him, and signed, “J. Klein, H. Eevinthan, Manager.” The answer was a general denial, and the case was tried before a jury.

At the close of the case the trial justice directed a verdict in favor of the plaintiff. The defendant objected to such direction, and asked to go to the jury upon the questions of fact. The only question at issue was whether or not Eevinthan, who signed defendant’s name to the note, was authorized to do so; and upon this question there was a conflict of evidence, and a direction of a verdict was therefore error.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

109 N.Y.S. 816, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kanevsky-v-klein-nyappterm-1908.