Lubetkin v. D. S. Stern & Co.
This text of 223 A.D. 770 (Lubetkin v. D. S. Stern & Co.) 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.
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
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
223 A.D. 770, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lubetkin-v-d-s-stern-co-nyappdiv-1928.