Mount Vernon Trust Co. v. McAtamney

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mount Vernon Trust Co. v. McAtamney

224 A.D. 662

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

DecidedMay 15, 1928

StatusPublished

This text of 224 A.D. 662 (Mount Vernon Trust Co. v. McAtamney) 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

Mount Vernon Trust Co. v. McAtamney, 224 A.D. 662 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment affirmed, with costs. The appellant’s own testimony (fols. 131-134, 139) sufficiently established that his relation to the original notes was that of a primary obligor, to whom notice of protest of the renewal note immediately preceding the note in suit was not necessary. (Witherow v. Slayback, 158 N. Y. 649.) His defense, therefore, of a conditional delivery was unavailing. Rich, Young, Kapper and Scudder, JJ., concur; Lazansky, P. J., concurs in result.

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

Judgment affirmed, with costs. The appellant’s own testimony (fols. 131-134, 139) sufficiently established that his relation to the original notes was that of a primary obligor, to whom notice of protest of the renewal note immediately preceding the note in suit was not necessary. (Witherow v. Slayback, 158 N. Y. 649.) His defense, therefore, of a conditional delivery was unavailing. Rich, Young, Kapper and Scudder, JJ., concur; Lazansky, P. J., concurs in result.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

224 A.D. 662, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mount-vernon-trust-co-v-mcatamney-nyappdiv-1928.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack