Skolsky v. Harvitt

121 N.Y.S. 592
CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York
DecidedMarch 10, 1910
StatusPublished

This text of 121 N.Y.S. 592 (Skolsky v. Harvitt) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Skolsky v. Harvitt, 121 N.Y.S. 592 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1910).

Opinion

GUY, J.

This is an appeal by defendant from "judgment in favor of plaintiff. The action is for goods sold and delivered; the only defense being payment. The evidence shows that defendant gave to plaintiff a postdated check in payment of the amount due, which check was never paid, but that plaintiff had parted with possession of the check "by indorsing and delivering it to a third party, who still retains possession thereof. Under the authority of Fitch v. McDowell, 145 N. Y. 498, 40 N. E. 205, this constitutes payment, and is a complete defense to this action.

The judgment should therefore be reversed,, and a new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event. A1Í concur.

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

Related

Fitch v. . McDowell
40 N.E. 205 (New York Court of Appeals, 1895)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
121 N.Y.S. 592, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/skolsky-v-harvitt-nyappterm-1910.