Zwerdling v. Kitrosser

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Zwerdling v. Kitrosser

148 N.Y.S. 99

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJune 18, 1914

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 148 N.Y.S. 99 (Zwerdling v. Kitrosser) 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

Zwerdling v. Kitrosser, 148 N.Y.S. 99 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

BIJUR, J.

[1] Plaintiff sued upon promissory notes. Defendant gave evidence to the effect that as between himself as maker and the payee there had been a fraudulent diversion of the notes. This overcame the presumption that plaintiff, the indorsee, was a bona fide holder for value. See Negotiable Instruments Law, §§ 91, 94, 98.

[2] The evidence thereupon adduced by plaintiff, to the effect that he had bought the notes in good faith for value and without notice of the infirmity, was, to say the least, quite unsatisfactory, and very plainly presented an issue to be determined by the jury. In this respect the case differs manifestly from Eisenberg v. Lefkowitz, 142 App. Div. [100]*100569, 127 N. Y. Supp. 595, where, the direction of a verdict in favor of plaintiff was sustained.

The judgment must be reversed, and new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide the event. All concur.

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

BIJUR, J.

[1] Plaintiff sued upon promissory notes. Defendant gave evidence to the effect that as between himself as maker and the payee there had been a fraudulent diversion of the notes. This overcame the presumption that plaintiff, the indorsee, was a bona fide holder for value. See Negotiable Instruments Law, §§ 91, 94, 98.

[2] The evidence thereupon adduced by plaintiff, to the effect that he had bought the notes in good faith for value and without notice of the infirmity, was, to say the least, quite unsatisfactory, and very plainly presented an issue to be determined by the jury. In this respect the case differs manifestly from Eisenberg v. Lefkowitz, 142 App. Div. [100]*100569, 127 N. Y. Supp. 595, where, the direction of a verdict in favor of plaintiff was sustained.

The judgment must be reversed, and new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide the event. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

148 N.Y.S. 99, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zwerdling-v-kitrosser-nyappterm-1914.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack