Legal Opinion
H. Herrmann Lumber Co. v. Bjurstrom
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York
Decided November 15, 1911PublishedCited by 2 opinions
Appeal by the plaintiff from a judgment of the Municipal Court of the city of Hew York, borough of Manhattan, first district, entered in favor of the defendant after a trial before the court without a jury.
1Opinion of the CourtGuy, J.
Action on a promissory note for $300. Defense by indorser that there was no sufficient notice- of protest. Plaintiff claims there were two written notices of protest as follows:
“ Hew York, May 15, 1911. •
“ Hr. I. Bjubstrom,
“ 2650 Broadway, City:
“ Dear Sir.-—We beg to inform you that the note of Carl A. Karlson for $300 due to day at our office endorsed by you has'not been paid. Mr. Karlson was Here and said he could not take up the note until the 29 inst. We would therefore ask you to send us a check in -settlement by return mail.
“ Yours truly,
“ H. Herrmann Lumber Co.”
“ Hew York, May 29, 1911.
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Hastings v. Brooklyn Life InsuranceNew York Court of Appeals · 1893
- Youngs v. . LeeNew York Court of Appeals · 1855
- McAndrew v. . RadwayNew York Court of Appeals · 1866
- Kupferberg v. HorowitzAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · 1907
3Cited by2 opinions
- Lasby v. BurgessMontana Supreme Court · 1930
- Devonshire v. Stubbs, New York County Courts1930