Progressive Finance & Realty Co. v. Miller & Sherry Enterprises, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Progressive Finance & Realty Co. v. Miller & Sherry Enterprises, Inc.

246 A.D. 822

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

DecidedJanuary 15, 1936

StatusPublished

This text of 246 A.D. 822 (Progressive Finance & Realty Co. v. Miller & Sherry Enterprises, Inc.) 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

Progressive Finance & Realty Co. v. Miller & Sherry Enterprises, Inc., 246 A.D. 822 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

Motion for reargument denied, without costs. Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals denied. The alleged waiver of defenses in the conditional sale contract must be read in connection with the other provisions of the contract and in the light of the knowledge plaintiff possessed concerning defects in the note at the time of transfer. We cannot say on this motion for summary judgment that the defendant was precluded as a matter of law from raising any defenses existing at the time the note was transferred. The plaintiff is scarcely in the position of the ordinary holder in due course. Present — Young, Carswell, Davis, Adel and Taylor, JJ.

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

Motion for reargument denied, without costs. Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals denied. The alleged waiver of defenses in the conditional sale contract must be read in connection with the other provisions of the contract and in the light of the knowledge plaintiff possessed concerning defects in the note at the time of transfer. We cannot say on this motion for summary judgment that the defendant was precluded as a matter of law from raising any defenses existing at the time the note was transferred. The plaintiff is scarcely in the position of the ordinary holder in due course. Present — Young, Carswell, Davis, Adel and Taylor, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

246 A.D. 822, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/progressive-finance-realty-co-v-miller-sherry-enterprises-inc-nyappdiv-1936.