Niebergall v. A. B. A. Contracting & Supply Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Niebergall v. A. B. A. Contracting & Supply Co.

24 A.D.2d 799, 263 N.Y.S.2d 589, 2 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. (West) 1163, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3236

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

DecidedOctober 22, 1965

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 24 A.D.2d 799 (Niebergall v. A. B. A. Contracting & Supply 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.

Bluebook

Niebergall v. A. B. A. Contracting & Supply Co., 24 A.D.2d 799, 263 N.Y.S.2d 589, 2 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. (West) 1163, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3236 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

Reynolds, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Columbia County, dismissing appellants’ complaint after trial. Appellants seek to recover $10,000 from the respondent Merle, a prior indorser of a note which the decedent Harvey K. Niebergall, a subsequent indorser, redeemed during his lifetime. While " indorsers are liable prima facie in the order in which they indorse; " *' * evidence is admissible to show that as between or among themselves they have agreed otherwise.” (Negotiable Instruments Law, § 118, see, also, Uniform Commercial Code, § 3-414, subd. [2].) The trial court has found that there was here sufficient evidence to establish that Merle signed solely as an accommodation to Niebergall to facilitate his securing bank acceptance of the loan and that it was understood between them that Merle would not be liable to Niebergall in case of default. We concur in this determination and also the finding of the court below that since there was no evidence to the contrary such intent was carried forward to renewals of the note (Callery v. Lyons, 292 N. Y. 15). Judgment affirmed, with costs. Herlihy, J. P., Taylor, Aulisi and Hamm, JJ., concur.

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

Reynolds, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Columbia County, dismissing appellants’ complaint after trial. Appellants seek to recover $10,000 from the respondent Merle, a prior indorser of a note which the decedent Harvey K. Niebergall, a subsequent indorser, redeemed during his lifetime. While " indorsers are liable prima facie in the order in which they indorse; " *' * evidence is admissible to show that as between or among themselves they have agreed otherwise.” (Negotiable Instruments Law, § 118, see, also, Uniform Commercial Code, § 3-414, subd. [2].) The trial court has found that there was here sufficient evidence to establish that Merle signed solely as an accommodation to Niebergall to facilitate his securing bank acceptance of the loan and that it was understood between them that Merle would not be liable to Niebergall in case of default. We concur in this determination and also the finding of the court below that since there was no evidence to the contrary such intent was carried forward to renewals of the note (Callery v. Lyons, 292 N. Y. 15). Judgment affirmed, with costs. Herlihy, J. P., Taylor, Aulisi and Hamm, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

24 A.D.2d 799, 263 N.Y.S.2d 589, 2 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. (West) 1163, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3236, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/niebergall-v-a-b-a-contracting-supply-co-nyappdiv-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack