Legal Opinion
Virginia-Carolina Chemical Co. v. Cooley
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided June 29, 1923PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Hubbs, P. J.:
This action was brought to recover upon a promissory note. The answer admits the making and delivery of the note, but alleges that the delivery of the note was induced by the fraud of the agent of the payee, the plaintiff herein.
Prior to the date of the note the plaintiff had sold and delivered to the defendant a quantity of fertilizer. There had been some controversy between the defendant and the agent of the plaintiff about the quality of the fertilizer and some talk about making an allowance to the defendant on account of its defective condition.
The facts, stated most…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Adams v. . GilligNew York Court of Appeals · 1910
- Jamestown Business College Assn. v. . AllenNew York Court of Appeals · 1902
- Gotteberg v. Park Terrace Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1915
- Gotteberg v. . Park Terrace CompanyNew York Court of Appeals · 1917
- McAvoy v. MaxwellAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · 1916
3Cited by3 opinions
- First National Bank of Hamden v. KaufmanAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1977
- Moore v. AbbeyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1925
- Electric Paint & Varnish Co. v. Binghamton Woven Wire Spring Co.New York Supreme Court · 1929