Smith v. Levine

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Smith v. Levine

113 N.Y.S. 982

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJanuary 8, 1909

StatusPublished

This text of 113 N.Y.S. 982 (Smith v. Levine) 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

Smith v. Levine, 113 N.Y.S. 982 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1909).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The point, now raised by the defendants fot-' thé first time, that he was brought into court upon an alias summons irregularly issued, does not affect the jurisdiction of the justice to render the judgment appealed from, in view of this party’s appearance and his filing of an answer. Municipal Court Act (Laws 1902, p. 1498, c. 580), § 26. The justice’s finding, upon the facts, that the insertion of the date in the note in suit was not an alteration of the instrument, nor a circumstance affecting the indorser’s agreement with the payee, is supported by the evidence as to the transaction between maker, indorser, and payee, and we find no ground for disturbing the result.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

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

PER CURIAM.

The point, now raised by the defendants fot-' thé first time, that he was brought into court upon an alias summons irregularly issued, does not affect the jurisdiction of the justice to render the judgment appealed from, in view of this party’s appearance and his filing of an answer. Municipal Court Act (Laws 1902, p. 1498, c. 580), § 26. The justice’s finding, upon the facts, that the insertion of the date in the note in suit was not an alteration of the instrument, nor a circumstance affecting the indorser’s agreement with the payee, is supported by the evidence as to the transaction between maker, indorser, and payee, and we find no ground for disturbing the result.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

113 N.Y.S. 982, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-levine-nyappterm-1909.