Pink v. Meyer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pink v. Meyer

248 A.D. 567, 288 N.Y.S. 15

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

DecidedMay 15, 1936

StatusPublished

This text of 248 A.D. 567 (Pink v. Meyer) 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

Pink v. Meyer, 248 A.D. 567, 288 N.Y.S. 15 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

Plaintiff in this action seeks to recover from defendant the sum of $10,950. It is plaintiff’s claim that defendant received moneys equal to that sum from the Concord Casualty and Surety Company in the form of improperly issued corporate checks and without furnishing any consideration therefor. The defendant contends that the checks received by him were in repayment of a loan made by him to Harold R. Cronin, president of the Concord Casualty and Surety Company, and that he had neither actual nor constructive notice that the cheeks accepted by Mm were improperly issued. The court directed judgment in favor of defendant after trial at Trial Term without a jury. Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. No opimon. Present — Martin, P. J., McAvoy, O’Malley, Glennon and Cohn, JJ. [159 Misc. 540.]

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

Plaintiff in this action seeks to recover from defendant the sum of $10,950. It is plaintiff’s claim that defendant received moneys equal to that sum from the Concord Casualty and Surety Company in the form of improperly issued corporate checks and without furnishing any consideration therefor. The defendant contends that the checks received by him were in repayment of a loan made by him to Harold R. Cronin, president of the Concord Casualty and Surety Company, and that he had neither actual nor constructive notice that the cheeks accepted by Mm were improperly issued. The court directed judgment in favor of defendant after trial at Trial Term without a jury. Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. No opimon. Present — Martin, P. J., McAvoy, O’Malley, Glennon and Cohn, JJ. [159 Misc. 540.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

248 A.D. 567, 288 N.Y.S. 15, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pink-v-meyer-nyappdiv-1936.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack