Manufacturers Trust Co. v. Palmer

13 A.D.2d 772, 215 N.Y.S.2d 840
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 29, 1961·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Three orders entered on December 4, 1959, denying plaintiff’s motions for summary judgment, unanimously reversed, on the law, with $20 costs and disbursements to the appellant, the motions granted, with $10 costs, and an assessment of damages directed. The alleged oral agreement varying the unconditional obligations of the notes in suit cannot be availed of as a defense. (Ford v. Hahn, 269 App. Div. 436.) The allegations of the defendants fail to sustain the defense of fraud. Moreover, public policy requires that a person executing an instrument constituting an obligation to a bank be estopped from enforcing an oral agreement not to enforce it according to its terms. (Mount Vernon Trust Co. v. Bergoff, 272 N. Y. 192.) Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Valente, McNally and Bergan, JJ.

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

Manufacturers Trust Co. v. Palmer, 13 A.D.2d 772, 215 N.Y.S.2d 840 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1961).

13 A.D.2d 772 (Manufacturers Trust Co. v. Palmer) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

European American Bank v. Abramoff
201 A.D.2d 611 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)
Chemical Bank v. Wasserman
333 N.E.2d 187 (New York Court of Appeals, 1975)