Legal Opinion

Smith v. Cranleigh, Inc.

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

Decided November 2, 1928PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtO’Malley, J.

On their motion for summary judgment the plaintiffs submitted proof, which stands uncontradicted, fully establishing the assignments made to them in writing of all of the notes sued upon by each of the several payees and thus their right to maintain the action.

The order denying the motion for summary judgment was made in deference to a prior decision which held that plaintiffs were required to allege and prove presentment to the defendant of the assignments by the payees to the plaintiffs as a condition precedent to their right'to sue. We think this was an erroneous view and that the…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Chelsea Exchange Bank v. MunozAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1922
  2. Meuer v. Phenix National BankAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1903

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Duban v. PlattAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1965
  2. Nathan H. Gordon Corp. v. CosmanAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1931
  3. Nopco Chemical Co. v. MilnerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1961
  4. Belmet Products, Inc. v. Merit Enterprises, Inc.Civil Court of the City of New York · 1963
  5. Cowan Oil & Refining Co. v. Miley Petroleum Corp.Appellate Division of the Superior Court of California · 1931

2 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