Welch v. Campbell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Welch v. Campbell

278 A.D. 605, 102 N.Y.S.2d 51, 1951 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4082

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJanuary 10, 1951

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 278 A.D. 605 (Welch v. Campbell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Welch v. Campbell, 278 A.D. 605, 102 N.Y.S.2d 51, 1951 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4082 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1951).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Otsego County, granting partial summary judgment. The action is on a note signed by appellant and another person as makers. It was a joint note in form and defendant is therefore liable for the entire obligation. One counterclaim alleges that in transactions with plaintiffs defendant had bought on conditional sales contracts goods for $1,500 or less and that the notes did not conform with the provisions of section 64-a of the Personal Property Law as to the size of type used and form of the instruments. The proof before the court showed, however, that the purchases were for business use and such a use is not within the protection of the statute. Order unanimously affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. Present — Foster, P. J., Heffernan, Brewster, Deyo and Coon, JJ. [197 Mise. 165.]

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

—Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Otsego County, granting partial summary judgment. The action is on a note signed by appellant and another person as makers. It was a joint note in form and defendant is therefore liable for the entire obligation. One counterclaim alleges that in transactions with plaintiffs defendant had bought on conditional sales contracts goods for $1,500 or less and that the notes did not conform with the provisions of section 64-a of the Personal Property Law as to the size of type used and form of the instruments. The proof before the court showed, however, that the purchases were for business use and such a use is not within the protection of the statute. Order unanimously affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. Present — Foster, P. J., Heffernan, Brewster, Deyo and Coon, JJ. [197 Mise. 165.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

278 A.D. 605, 102 N.Y.S.2d 51, 1951 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4082, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/welch-v-campbell-nyappdiv-1951.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack