From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hellawell v. Garrett Busch Son, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 1, 1936
248 App. Div. 737 (N.Y. App. Div. 1936)

Opinion

June, 1936.


Appeal from order granting respondent's motion for summary judgment under rule 113 of the Rules of Civil Practice, and denying plaintiff's motion for similar relief. Order modified so as to provide that respondent's motion for summary judgment be denied, and as so modified affirmed, without costs. There are questions of fact to be determined in so far as defendant Bertha Busch's individual responsibility is concerned. Upon a trial, facts with reference to the financial status of the estate and as to the persons interested therein should be elicited, as well as the facts in connection with the indorsement of the note by said defendant, including conversation between her representative and the representative of the bank as to her liability. Views expressed in Bank of Troy v. Topping (9 Wend. 273; 13 id. 557) may be helpful as indicating some of the issuable facts herein. Lazansky, P.J., Young, Davis, Johnston and Adel, JJ. concur. [ 157 Misc. 805.]


Summaries of

Hellawell v. Garrett Busch Son, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 1, 1936
248 App. Div. 737 (N.Y. App. Div. 1936)
Case details for

Hellawell v. Garrett Busch Son, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:EDWIN V. HELLAWELL, as Receiver of the FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF HEMPSTEAD…

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

Date published: Jun 1, 1936

Citations

248 App. Div. 737 (N.Y. App. Div. 1936)

Citing Cases

Wander v. White House Furs, Inc.

Order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. Plaintiff's time to serve his complaint is extended until…