Legal Opinion

Automobile Finance Co. v. Holmes

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided November 18, 1942Published

1Opinion of the Court

Memorandum: We think that the complaint should have been dismissed for failure to state a cause of action. The note and the agreement of guaranty were executed and delivered simultaneously and constituted but one instrument and they should be construed together and an action should have been brought on both instruments. (See Federal Credit Bureau, Inc., v. Zelkor Dining Car Corp., 238 App. Div. 379; Manufacturers Trust Co. v. Steinhardt, 265 N. Y. 145; Colonial Discount Company, Inc., v. Rumens, 249 App. Div. 736; affd., 274 N. Y. 612; Rogers v. Smith, 47 N. Y. 324.) The judgment should be…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Rogers v. . SmithNew York Court of Appeals · 1872
  2. Federal Credit Bureau, Inc. v. Zelkor Dining Car Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1933
  3. Manufacturers Trust Co. v. SteinhardtNew York Court of Appeals · 1934
  4. Colonial Discount Co. v. RumensAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1936
  5. Colonial Discount Co., Inc. v. RumensNew York Court of Appeals · 1937

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API