From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Goldsmith v. Sachs

Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Dec 1, 1899
30 Misc. 767 (N.Y. App. Term 1899)

Opinion

December, 1899.

Otto H. Droege, for appellant.

Jacob B. Engel, for respondent.


The disputed questions of fact whether the note was transferred to the plaintiff before or after maturity and whether any consideration passed between the original parties, were resolved against the plaintiff, and the record presents nothing for our consideration warranting interference with the judgment.

Judgment affirmed, with costs to respondent.

Present: FREEDMAN, P.J.; MacLEAN and LEVENTRITT, JJ.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.


Summaries of

Goldsmith v. Sachs

Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Dec 1, 1899
30 Misc. 767 (N.Y. App. Term 1899)
Case details for

Goldsmith v. Sachs

Case Details

Full title:ISAIAH GOLDSMITH, Appellant, v . PHILIP SACHS, Respondent

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Term

Date published: Dec 1, 1899

Citations

30 Misc. 767 (N.Y. App. Term 1899)

Citing Cases

Gray v. City of Santa Fe

The remedy is by motion to strike. Goldsmith v. Sachs (C.C.Cal.) 17 F. 726, 730; Kenny v. Knight (C.C.Mass.)…

Fincher v. Belk-Sawyer Company

Clearly where the matters left for future agreement are unessential, the remainder of the contract may be…