Weartex Rubber Co. v. Goldman

New York Supreme Court

Weartex Rubber Co. v. Goldman

123 Misc. 228, 204 N.Y.S. 205, 1924 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1291, 1924 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9988

DecidedApril 14, 1924

StatusPublished

This text of 123 Misc. 228 (Weartex Rubber Co. v. Goldman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Weartex Rubber Co. v. Goldman, 123 Misc. 228, 204 N.Y.S. 205, 1924 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1291, 1924 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9988 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff sues on a promissory note made by appellant to the order of one Lurie, and alleged in plaintiff’s affidavit to have been delivered to it before maturity for a bill of goods sold by it to said Lurie. Against this statement of conclusions without details, appellant presents a receipt signed by Lurie, reading as follows: “ I hereby acknowledge payment in full by Mitty H. Goldman [defendant] of note for $250, dated October 20, 1922, made by Mitty H. Goldman to the order of Max F: Lurie. The original note having been lost, I did not deliver or transfer the note to any person.”

It is clear that there will be a sharp question of fact between plaintiff and defendant as to whether the former is a bona fide holder for value, and defendant has demonstrated that he has good reason to believe that the payee will support his contention. On this issue he is undoubtedly entitled to a trial in the ordinary way.

Judgment and order reversed, with ten dollars costs, and motion denied, with ten dollars costs.

All concur; present, Bijur, McCook and Crain, JJ.

Judgment and order reversed.

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

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff sues on a promissory note made by appellant to the order of one Lurie, and alleged in plaintiff’s affidavit to have been delivered to it before maturity for a bill of goods sold by it to said Lurie. Against this statement of conclusions without details, appellant presents a receipt signed by Lurie, reading as follows: “ I hereby acknowledge payment in full by Mitty H. Goldman [defendant] of note for $250, dated October 20, 1922, made by Mitty H. Goldman to the order of Max F: Lurie. The original note having been lost, I did not deliver or transfer the note to any person.”

It is clear that there will be a sharp question of fact between plaintiff and defendant as to whether the former is a bona fide holder for value, and defendant has demonstrated that he has good reason to believe that the payee will support his contention. On this issue he is undoubtedly entitled to a trial in the ordinary way.

Judgment and order reversed, with ten dollars costs, and motion denied, with ten dollars costs.

All concur; present, Bijur, McCook and Crain, JJ.

Judgment and order reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

123 Misc. 228, 204 N.Y.S. 205, 1924 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1291, 1924 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9988, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/weartex-rubber-co-v-goldman-nysupct-1924.