M. E. Schoen Corp. v. Bank of China

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

M. E. Schoen Corp. v. Bank of China

274 A.D. 806, 79 N.Y.S.2d 653, 1948 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3444

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

DecidedJune 14, 1948

StatusPublished

This text of 274 A.D. 806 (M. E. Schoen Corp. v. Bank of China) 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

M. E. Schoen Corp. v. Bank of China, 274 A.D. 806, 79 N.Y.S.2d 653, 1948 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3444 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1948).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover upon a letter of credit, summary judgment striking out defendant’s amended answer and awarding recovery to plaintiff, under rule 113 of the Rules of Civil Practice, after reargument of motion therefor, reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and the motion denied, with $10 costs. In our opinion the discrepancies between the specified requirements of the letter of credit and the documents presented by respondent warranted refusal by appellant to honor respondent’s drafts, if objection thereto were not waived by appellant. (Bank of Italy v. Merchants Nat. Bank, 236 N. Y. 106; Lamborn V. Lake Shore Banking & Trust Co., 196 App. Div. 504, affd. 231 N. Y. 616.) The papers submitted upon the motion for summary judgment present the issue of whether or not appellant waived such objections, which must await determination by trial. Johnston, Acting P. J., Adel, Nolan, Sneed and Wenzel, JJ ., concur.

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

In an action to recover upon a letter of credit, summary judgment striking out defendant’s amended answer and awarding recovery to plaintiff, under rule 113 of the Rules of Civil Practice, after reargument of motion therefor, reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and the motion denied, with $10 costs. In our opinion the discrepancies between the specified requirements of the letter of credit and the documents presented by respondent warranted refusal by appellant to honor respondent’s drafts, if objection thereto were not waived by appellant. (Bank of Italy v. Merchants Nat. Bank, 236 N. Y. 106; Lamborn V. Lake Shore Banking & Trust Co., 196 App. Div. 504, affd. 231 N. Y. 616.) The papers submitted upon the motion for summary judgment present the issue of whether or not appellant waived such objections, which must await determination by trial. Johnston, Acting P. J., Adel, Nolan, Sneed and Wenzel, JJ ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

274 A.D. 806, 79 N.Y.S.2d 653, 1948 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3444, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/m-e-schoen-corp-v-bank-of-china-nyappdiv-1948.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack