From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Fischer v. Plum

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 26, 1948
273 App. Div. 818 (N.Y. App. Div. 1948)

Opinion

January 26, 1948.


Order denying plaintiff's motion for summary judgment reversed on the law and the facts, with $10 costs and disbursements, and the motion granted, with $10 costs. Defendant did not show by evidentiary facts that plaintiff had any knowledge of the alleged false and fraudulent representations made by the payee of the note, from whom plaintiff obtained it for value, before maturity and in good faith and, therefore, did not establish a triable issue with respect to whether or not plaintiff was a holder in due course. ( Rogers v. Reynolds, 226 App. Div. 813.) Lewis, P.J., Carswell, Johnston, Sneed and Wenzel, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Fischer v. Plum

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 26, 1948
273 App. Div. 818 (N.Y. App. Div. 1948)
Case details for

Fischer v. Plum

Case Details

Full title:STUART P. FISCHER, Appellant, v. JOSEPH M. PLUM, Respondent

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

Date published: Jan 26, 1948

Citations

273 App. Div. 818 (N.Y. App. Div. 1948)

Citing Cases

South Shore Securities Co. v. Goode

( Tradesmen's Nat. Bank v. Curtis, supra; National Bank of Watervliet v. Martin, supra; Colonial Discount Co.…

Household Disc. Corp. v. Gleasman

But there must be some factual circumstances alleged by defendants which raise a triable issue as to the bad…