Legal Opinion

Bronner v. Walrath

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

Decided January 15, 1924PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Per curiam

The evidentiary matter, discovered since the trial herein, and set forth in respondents’ brief, may not, of course, be considered on this appeal. The case must be disposed of on the record as it stands. The presumption created by the form of the Christman note is that the four parties signing it were joint and several makers and became jointly and severally liable. (National Surety Co. v. Seaich, 171 App. Div. 414; Neg. Inst. Law, § 36.) Each was liable to pay the whole amount. But if one paid more than his share, he might have contribution from the others. (Morgan v. Smith, 70 N. Y. 537;…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Morgan v. . SmithNew York Court of Appeals · 1877
  2. National Surety Co. v. SeaichAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1916
  3. Mertens v. WakefieldNew York Supreme Court · 1901

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Padilla v. Greyhound Lines, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1968
  2. Colquhoun (Eliz.) Est. v. Colquhoun (Robt.) Est.Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1982
  3. Brown v. ArcuriAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1974
  4. Meyrowitz v. WattelCity of New York Municipal Court · 1933
  5. Salzberg v. DeutschCity of New York Municipal Court · 1934

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API