The Irvington National Bank v. Zuckschwerdt

Supreme Court of New Jersey

The Irvington National Bank v. Zuckschwerdt

164 A. 483, 110 N.J.L. 345, 1933 N.J. LEXIS 492

DecidedFebruary 14, 1933

StatusPublished

This text of 164 A. 483 (The Irvington National Bank v. Zuckschwerdt) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of New Jersey primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

The Irvington National Bank v. Zuckschwerdt, 164 A. 483, 110 N.J.L. 345, 1933 N.J. LEXIS 492 (N.J. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

Pee Cueiam.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court. The suit was upon a promissory note made by the defendant. The answer was struck as sham. It appears that the defendant’s husband was indebted to the plaintiff bank upon five demand collateral notes. The collateral being insufficient and the defendant’s husband being unable to make payment in whole or part, or furnish more security, the defendant made her note for $5,000 payable in one month. This note was endorsed by her husband, and was then discounted by the bank and the proceeds credited upon-the husband’s demand loans. The $5,000 note was thereafter renewed from time to time, and finally the note in suit for $4,300 was given.

The forbearance of the bank was of obvious benefit to the defendant and her husband. There is not a scintilla of proof to suggest that the transaction was intended to deceive the bank examiners or anyone else. The transaction was carried on in the usual course of business and the records of the bank faithfully reveal the exact transaction. The bank, holding an insufficiently secured loan, obtained such advantage as it could. The defendant secured time for her husband to pay his honest debts. The proofs indicate not only that there was a good and valid consideration for the note, but that there was no illegality whatever in the transaction.

The judgment is affirmed.

*347 For affirmance — Parker, Lloyd, Case, Bodine, Brogan, Heher, Yan Buskirk, Kays, Heteield, Dear, Wells, JJ. li.

For reversal — None.

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

Pee Cueiam.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court. The suit was upon a promissory note made by the defendant. The answer was struck as sham. It appears that the defendant’s husband was indebted to the plaintiff bank upon five demand collateral notes. The collateral being insufficient and the defendant’s husband being unable to make payment in whole or part, or furnish more security, the defendant made her note for $5,000 payable in one month. This note was endorsed by her husband, and was then discounted by the bank and the proceeds credited upon-the husband’s demand loans. The $5,000 note was thereafter renewed from time to time, and finally the note in suit for $4,300 was given.

The forbearance of the bank was of obvious benefit to the defendant and her husband. There is not a scintilla of proof to suggest that the transaction was intended to deceive the bank examiners or anyone else. The transaction was carried on in the usual course of business and the records of the bank faithfully reveal the exact transaction. The bank, holding an insufficiently secured loan, obtained such advantage as it could. The defendant secured time for her husband to pay his honest debts. The proofs indicate not only that there was a good and valid consideration for the note, but that there was no illegality whatever in the transaction.

The judgment is affirmed.

*347 For affirmance — Parker, Lloyd, Case, Bodine, Brogan, Heher, Yan Buskirk, Kays, Heteield, Dear, Wells, JJ. li.

For reversal — None.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

164 A. 483, 110 N.J.L. 345, 1933 N.J. LEXIS 492, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/the-irvington-national-bank-v-zuckschwerdt-nj-1933.