Kohn v. Henderson

New York Supreme Court

Kohn v. Henderson

8 N.Y.S. 726, 5 Silv. Sup. 518, 30 N.Y. St. Rep. 374, 55 Hun 611, 1890 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1741

DecidedFebruary 12, 1890

StatusPublished

This text of 8 N.Y.S. 726 (Kohn v. Henderson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Kohn v. Henderson, 8 N.Y.S. 726, 5 Silv. Sup. 518, 30 N.Y. St. Rep. 374, 55 Hun 611, 1890 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1741 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1890).

Pincite

Opinion

Dykhan, J.

This is an action on two promissory notes, and the defense is that they never were commercial paper, and were executed by the defendant merely as vouchers for money advanced by the plaintiff and his associates, to be disbursed by the defendant for the promotion of a railroad enterprise in which all the parties were interested, and that there never was any intention or expectation that the notes would be paid. The testimony produced on the trial, and the circumstances surrounding the transaction, support the theory of the defendant, and the trial judge directed a verdict in his favor. We concur in the views expressed by the trial judge in his assignment of his reasons for directing a verdict for the defendant, and we find no necessity for any extended remarks at this time. The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

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

Dykhan, J.

This is an action on two promissory notes, and the defense is that they never were commercial paper, and were executed by the defendant merely as vouchers for money advanced by the plaintiff and his associates, to be disbursed by the defendant for the promotion of a railroad enterprise in which all the parties were interested, and that there never was any intention or expectation that the notes would be paid. The testimony produced on the trial, and the circumstances surrounding the transaction, support the theory of the defendant, and the trial judge directed a verdict in his favor. We concur in the views expressed by the trial judge in his assignment of his reasons for directing a verdict for the defendant, and we find no necessity for any extended remarks at this time. The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 N.Y.S. 726, 5 Silv. Sup. 518, 30 N.Y. St. Rep. 374, 55 Hun 611, 1890 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1741, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kohn-v-henderson-nysupct-1890.