Legal Opinion
Merson v. Sun Insurance
Civil Court of the City of New York
Decided October 5, 1964PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtEdward J. Greenfield, J.
The draft issued by the insurance
company in this case was a fully negotiable bill of exchange (Negotiable Instruments Law, §§ 20, 210). The words “ upon acceptance ” meant acceptance by the drawee bank (Negotiable Instruments Law, § 220). These words did not render the instrument conditional, since presentment for acceptance may be required for any check or bill of exchange (Negotiable Instruments Law, § 248; cf. Uniform Commercial Code, § 3-410, subd. [2]). A trade acceptance has always been deemed a negotiable instrument (Citizens’ Trust Co. v. Prescott & Son, 221 App. Div. 420, 422;…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Atterbury v. Bank of Washington HeightsNew York Court of Appeals · 1925
- Citizens Trust Co. v. R. Prescott & Son, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1927
- First National Bank of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania v. National Park BankAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1917
- Mintz v. KerryNew York Supreme Court · 1957
3Cited by6 opinions
- State v. PhelpsCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1980
- Messing v. Bank of America, N.A.Court of Special Appeals of Maryland · 2002
- Lialios v. HOME INSURANCE COS.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1980
- Marine Midland Trust Co. of Rochester v. BlackburnNew York Supreme Court · 1966
- Falk's Food Basket of Easton, Inc. v. Selected Risks InsuranceSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1969
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.