Union Trust Co. v. Barnhardt

245 A.D. 829

Opinion

In an action upon a promissory note, in which the trial justice directed a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs at the close of the entire case, judgment reversed on the law and a new trial granted, with costs to abide the event, on the ground that the trial court erred in not submitting to the jury the question as to whether the notice of protest had been properly mailed to the defendant in view of the testimony of the defendant that he had never received such notice at his place of residence, to which, in [830] accordance with the affidavit of the notary, it had been mailed. (Townsend v. Avid, 10 Misc. 343; Meise v. Newman, 76 Hun, 341.) Lazansky, P. J., Young, Carswell, Tompkins and Johnston, JJ., concur.

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

Union Trust Co. v. Barnhardt, 245 A.D. 829 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1935).

245 A.D. 829 (Union Trust Co. v. Barnhardt) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Meise v. Newman
27 N.Y.S. 708 (New York Supreme Court, 1894)
Townsend v. Auld
31 N.Y.S. 29 (New York Court of Common Pleas, 1894)