Skolsky v. Harvitt

121 N.Y.S. 592
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York·Decided March 10, 1910·Published

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

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

121 N.Y.S. 592 (Skolsky v. Harvitt) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

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