Williams v. Brown

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Williams v. Brown

80 N.Y.S. 247

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

DecidedFebruary 11, 1903

StatusPublished

This text of 80 N.Y.S. 247 (Williams v. Brown) 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

Williams v. Brown, 80 N.Y.S. 247 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1903).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This case was before the appellate division at the July term, in 1900, when a judgment in favor of the plaintiff was reversed on account of the unexplained delay of the plaintiff in collecting the check, which was given in conditional payment for the goods sold and delivered. 53 App. Div. 486, 65 N. Y. Supp. 1049. Upon the trial which the present appeal brings up for review, it was made distinctly to appear that the person whose check upon the Perth Amboy Bank was given in payment of the plaintiff’s account had settled with that bank in such a way as to incur no loss by reason of the failure of the institution. Under these circumstances the delay in the presentation of the check did him no damage, and would not be available to him' as a defense in case the defendants should endeavor to enforce payment thereof. As it is now claimed that the defendants have not actually paid for the property which they purchased from the plaintiff, and that the plaintiff has in no wise harmed them or the maker of the check by his manner of dealing with it, it follows that the judgment is right, and should be affirmed.

Judgment of the municipal court affirmed, with costs.

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

PER CURIAM.

This case was before the appellate division at the July term, in 1900, when a judgment in favor of the plaintiff was reversed on account of the unexplained delay of the plaintiff in collecting the check, which was given in conditional payment for the goods sold and delivered. 53 App. Div. 486, 65 N. Y. Supp. 1049. Upon the trial which the present appeal brings up for review, it was made distinctly to appear that the person whose check upon the Perth Amboy Bank was given in payment of the plaintiff’s account had settled with that bank in such a way as to incur no loss by reason of the failure of the institution. Under these circumstances the delay in the presentation of the check did him no damage, and would not be available to him' as a defense in case the defendants should endeavor to enforce payment thereof. As it is now claimed that the defendants have not actually paid for the property which they purchased from the plaintiff, and that the plaintiff has in no wise harmed them or the maker of the check by his manner of dealing with it, it follows that the judgment is right, and should be affirmed.

Judgment of the municipal court affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

80 N.Y.S. 247, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-brown-nyappdiv-1903.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack