Tucker v. Michaels

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Tucker v. Michaels

112 N.Y.S. 1044

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedNovember 24, 1908

StatusPublished

This text of 112 N.Y.S. 1044 (Tucker v. Michaels) 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

Tucker v. Michaels, 112 N.Y.S. 1044 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1908).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This action was brought to recover upon a promissory note, made by the defendant Woog, and indorsed by the defendant Michaels. The plaintiff was concededly a purchaser of the note after its maturity, and therefore the defense of “no consideration,” if proven, was a good one. The note in suit seems to be one of a series of renewals of an original note given by the defendant Wood to a Mrs. McCalley, by her transferred, and eventually falling into the hands of this plaintiff. Upon the trial Woog, the maker of the note, testified that he never received any consideration whatever for the giving of the original note, or any of its renewals, and this testimony was uncontradicted. The judgment should therefore be reversed.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellants to abide the event.

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

PER CURIAM.

This action was brought to recover upon a promissory note, made by the defendant Woog, and indorsed by the defendant Michaels. The plaintiff was concededly a purchaser of the note after its maturity, and therefore the defense of “no consideration,” if proven, was a good one. The note in suit seems to be one of a series of renewals of an original note given by the defendant Wood to a Mrs. McCalley, by her transferred, and eventually falling into the hands of this plaintiff. Upon the trial Woog, the maker of the note, testified that he never received any consideration whatever for the giving of the original note, or any of its renewals, and this testimony was uncontradicted. The judgment should therefore be reversed.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellants to abide the event.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

112 N.Y.S. 1044, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tucker-v-michaels-nyappterm-1908.