From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lubetkin v. D.S. Stern Co., Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 1, 1928
223 App. Div. 770 (N.Y. App. Div. 1928)

Opinion

March, 1928.


Order reversed upon the law and the facts, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion denied, with ten dollars costs. Plaintiffs, not being the actual borrowers, may not maintain this action to cancel the alleged usurious notes, and for the return of collateral given thereunder, without restoring, or offering to restore, to defendant the sum or sums actually received by their testator. ( Buckingham v. Corning, 91 N.Y. 525.) The complaint failing, for this reason, to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, the injunction pendente lite was improperly granted. Lazansky, P.J., Rich, Young, Seeger and Carswell, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Lubetkin v. D.S. Stern Co., Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 1, 1928
223 App. Div. 770 (N.Y. App. Div. 1928)
Case details for

Lubetkin v. D.S. Stern Co., Inc.

Case Details

Full title:ESTELLE LUBETKIN and MILTON LUBETKIN, as Executors, etc., of PHILIP…

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

Date published: Mar 1, 1928

Citations

223 App. Div. 770 (N.Y. App. Div. 1928)

Citing Cases

Singer v. Lichtman

Since the plaintiff is not the borrower, she may not maintain an action in equity for the cancellation or…

Metz v. Gunther

The defendants, however, in their capacity as accommodation indorsers or sureties for the repayment of the…