Barnett v. Lichtenstein
New York Supreme Court
THIS action was brought by the plaintiff, as indorsee, - against the defendant, as maker of a promissory note payable to the order of M. Lichtenstein, and indorsed by him.
Read the full summary
THIS action was brought by the plaintiff, as indorsee, - against the defendant, as maker of a promissory note payable to the order of M. Lichtenstein, and indorsed by him. The complaint charged that the defendant had received, to the use of the plaintiff, $152.17; that she was the owner of separate property, consisting of a house, No. 209 West 48th street, in the city of New York, and other real and personal property, of great value; that being so indebted, and owning this property, she made the promissory note in question, the payee being her husband; and that she delivered the note to the…
1Opinion of the CourtClerke, J.
The special term has found that the note in question was not made or procured under the coercion of the defendant’s husband or any other person, and that the same was made at the request of her husband, for his benefit and as his surety. The note is in these words: “ Thirty days after date I promise to pay to the order of M. Lichtenstein [her husband] one hundred and fifty-two dollars seventeen cents, at 359 Canal street, value received, for the benefit of my separate real and personal estate, and the said sum is hereby declared to be a charge thereupon and payable therefrom.” It is alleged…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Dollner, Potter & Co. v. SnowSupreme Court of Florida · 1877
- Stockton v. FarleyWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1877
- Kelso v. TaborNew York Supreme Court · 1867
- Corn Exchange Insurance v. BabcockNew York Supreme Court · 1867