From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Commercial Investment Trust v. Pearson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Sep 1, 1932
236 App. Div. 772 (N.Y. App. Div. 1932)

Opinion

September, 1932.

Appeal from County Court of Niagara County.


The evidence shows that plaintiff was a holder of the promissory notes in due course for the reason that it became the owner and holder of same on October 6, 1928, for value, before maturity and no breach of the "guarantee" occurred until after the date mentioned. ( Tradesmen's National Bank v. Curtis, 167 N.Y. 194; Pellegrino v. First National Bank of Newark, N.Y., 210 App. Div. 584.) Findings of fact Nos. VI, VII, VIII, IX and X and conclusion of law No. 1 are disapproved and reversed and new findings and conclusion made. All concur. Judgment reversed on the law and facts, with costs, and judgment directed for the plaintiff for the amount demanded in the complaint, with costs. [ 141 Misc. 78.]


Summaries of

Commercial Investment Trust v. Pearson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Sep 1, 1932
236 App. Div. 772 (N.Y. App. Div. 1932)
Case details for

Commercial Investment Trust v. Pearson

Case Details

Full title:COMMERCIAL INVESTMENT TRUST, INCORPORATED, Appellant, v. A.L. PEARSON…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

Date published: Sep 1, 1932

Citations

236 App. Div. 772 (N.Y. App. Div. 1932)

Citing Cases

Credit Alliance v. Buffalo Linen S

Plaintiff cannot be charged with knowledge or notice of any infirmity in the instruments. ( Tradesmen's…

Coopersmith v. Maunz

We are not concerned now with a case of breach of warranty subsequent to the negotiation of promissory notes,…