From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

New York Mortgage Co. v. Garfinkel

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Dec 1, 1931
179 N.E. 33 (N.Y. 1931)

Opinion

Argued November 19, 1931

Decided December 1, 1931

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

Daniel Levy and William Solomon for appellant. Ellsworth Baker and Benjamin Cosor for respondents.


The evidence justifies the inference that the president and the attorney-director in making the loan and in taking the bonus were acting for and in behalf of the corporation. On this point the plaintiff has at least failed to call these two officers to show what became of the money they received.

Whether the mortgage would be void for usury if the two officers, betraying their trust and violating their duty, personally accepted a bonus for the loan from the corporation, we do not decide.

The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

CARDOZO, Ch. J., POUND, CRANE, LEHMAN, KELLOGG, O'BRIEN and HUBBS, JJ., concur.

Judgment affirmed.


Summaries of

New York Mortgage Co. v. Garfinkel

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Dec 1, 1931
179 N.E. 33 (N.Y. 1931)
Case details for

New York Mortgage Co. v. Garfinkel

Case Details

Full title:THE NEW YORK MORTGAGE COMPANY, Appellant, v. JULIUS GARFINKEL et al.…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Dec 1, 1931

Citations

179 N.E. 33 (N.Y. 1931)
179 N.E. 33

Citing Cases

WETCHLER v. WEAL HOMES CORPORATION

The corporation could act only through its officers, and presumptively the corporation was acting through its…

Franklin Natl. Bank of Long Island v. Giacomo

Under the circumstances, we do not reach the question whether the plaintiff would be chargeable with usury if…