Reichert v. McQuade

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Reichert v. McQuade

217 A.D. 779

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 15, 1926·Published

Opinion

Judgment and order reversed upon the law, and new trial granted, costs to abide the event. Plaintiff failed to prove that, at the time he made the formal demand upon defendant for the payment of the note, he exhibited the note to defendant or had the note in his possession. (Gilpin v. Savage, 201 N. Y. 167.) Kelly, P. J., Manning, Kapper [780]*780and Lazansky, JJ., concur; Young, J., dissents, being of opinion that the stipulation at folio 40 of the record limits the issue to the reasonableness of the time of presentation of the note, and in effect concedes that the note was properly presented. The case was tried on this theory.

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

Judgment and order reversed upon the law, and new trial granted, costs to abide the event. Plaintiff failed to prove that, at the time he made the formal demand upon defendant for the payment of the note, he exhibited the note to defendant or had the note in his possession. (Gilpin v. Savage, 201 N. Y. 167.) Kelly, P. J., Manning, Kapper [780]*780and Lazansky, JJ., concur; Young, J., dissents, being of opinion that the stipulation at folio 40 of the record limits the issue to the reasonableness of the time of presentation of the note, and in effect concedes that the note was properly presented. The case was tried on this theory.

Reichert v. McQuade, 217 A.D. 779 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1926).

Pincite

217 A.D. 779 (Reichert v. McQuade) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related