State Trading Corp. v. Rosen

9 A.2d 289, 126 Conn. 37, 1939 Conn. LEXIS 238
Supreme Court of Connecticut·Decided November 8, 1939·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Avery, J.

This action was brought by the indorsee of a trade acceptance against the maker. The facts *38 were stipulated between the parties, and it was agreed that if the instrument was negotiable the plaintiff was to be regarded as a bona fide holder for value and entitled to recover. If the instrument was not negotiable, judgment should be entered in favor of the defendant. The instrument was in the following form:

“No. Api. 11, 1938.
To Carroll Cut Rate (H. D. Rosen)
Milford, Conn.
ZIPsy5sHMLrSErzDjwLnCxnzg7RyRIv/fYAwTb9QoLQEAUUPN/c2aVB/5ARA1rccHV2vhn4C14LAyhMxUODhFT67iUBowBosoloQxm6GXVwdm5hD6MvkC9hIqUFm9fEN+YgZs7ONT7Ji64qIcVUMCmIIHR4jagHiENtqTUVAHwTiZZMr8gT/CJh8a6mQn74HfAL4nwDX2SYCC/zY1OOnBT7p+MuDUEGMKS4kzCReFCkciNQbEUpFod1dkivQA3X+L2J46tsA9gYrMsX37AIm/e2COkx8P+09t3SJfpMLiecTEpEQ64V8kHjTf4O79H79zbV0drvjtuCCHvWdxS/17D/l8ob1a655fc5asn7V+f4X1mD98sKGl2GFujZLFGlYTXeSheu4cf/ln9q5eP/LbbcPmL6xtavCt8w+tpHxuBMPCO2X1BNOvhSxVueefcHc8t6nFKa5NedMgD3xHAoMnCfFvDILgIQMNEslbKc6pUrvf9sSBBEu/kSDtpoVSdqiGgIJnZh20F2RddmMuxLS1vvfpCPy6qv/O0yQoCWG3HlLpClKoosNSdqbqX3YYItdFg9FbZEkx59GJDIi3JVgpvla53OISFuiGyJ9USJKQtkUkUzW1pS4PUhsReKOiNyp3

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

State Trading Corp. v. Rosen, 9 A.2d 289, 126 Conn. 37, 1939 Conn. LEXIS 238 (Colo. 1939).

9 A.2d 289 (State Trading Corp. v. Rosen) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Eastern Service Centers, Inc. v. Cloverland Farms Dairy, Inc.
744 A.2d 63 (Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, 2000)
State Trading Corp. v. Jordan
22 A.2d 30 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 1941)