Lubetkin v. D. S. Stern & Co.

223 A.D. 770
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 15, 1928·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Order reversed upon the law and the facts, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion denied, with ten dollars costs. Plaintiffs, not being the actual borrowers, may not maintain this action to cancel the alleged usurious notes, and for the return of collateral given thereunder, without restoring, or offering to restore, to defendant the sum or sums actually received by their testator. (Buckingham v. Corning, 91 N. Y. 525.) The complaint failing, for this reason, to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, the injunction pendente lite was improperly granted. Lazansky, P. J., Rich, Young, Seeger and Carswell, JJ., concur.

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

Lubetkin v. D. S. Stern & Co., 223 A.D. 770 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1928).

223 A.D. 770 (Lubetkin v. D. S. Stern & Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Metz v. Gunther
14 A.D.2d 574 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1961)
In re the Estate of Sexton
182 Misc. 986 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1944)
Singer v. Lichtman
252 A.D. 894 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1937)