Legal Opinion

Tidewater Oil Sales Corp. v. Pierce

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

Decided July 6, 1925PublishedCited by 14 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Burr, J.:

• Plaintiff has recovered a judgment under rule 113 of the Rules of Civil Practice and defendant appeals therefrom.

The action is based on a promissory note made, by the defendant to the order of the plaintiff, dated January 11, 1924, and due March 11, 1924. The note was not paid on the due date and this action was brought to recover the sum of $400, the face value of the note. The essential allegations in an action on a note are alleged in the complaint.

The defendant in his answer admits the making and delivery of the note in suit, as well as its presentation for payment; but…

2Cited by14 opinions

  1. Bernstein v. KritzerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1928
  2. United States v. StephanidisDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 1930
  3. Novice v. Commercial Travelers Mutual Accident Ass'n of AmericaCity of New York Municipal Court · 1953
  4. Stuyvesant Credit Union v. Manufacturers Trust Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1933
  5. Wm. H. Frear & Co. v. BaileyTroy City Court · 1926

9 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