Legal Opinion
Schwartz v. Armand Fried Inc.
New York Supreme Court
Decided December 27, 1946PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtPecora, J.
A motion for summary judgment upon a negotiable instrument held by one claiming to be a holder in due course will ordinarily be denied on a showing that the title of the person who negotiated the instrument was defective under section 94 of the Negotiable Instruments Law, for, under section 98 of the Negotiable Instruments Law, “ when it is shown that the title of any person who has negotiated the instrument was defective, the burden is on the holder to prove that he or some person under whom he claims acquired the title as a holder in due course/* (Karpas v. Bandler, 218 App. Div. 418.)…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Karpas v. BandlerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1926
- Broderick & Bascom Rope Co. v. Margaret McGrath & Henry J. McCoy Co.New York Supreme Court · 1913
- Mitchell v. BaldwinAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1903
- Ruck v. LevineAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · 1930
3Cited by2 opinions
- Household Discount Corp. v. GleasmanNew York Supreme Court · 1964
- Staten Island National Bank & Trust Co. v. BuccelloAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · 1955