Legal Opinion
Hoberg v. Sofranscy
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided July 6, 1926PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtWagner, J.
The plaintiff instituted this action to recover on a promissory note made by the defendant on September 25, 1921, for $4,185. The alleged payee is the Jeavons Company. The note is claimed to have been given for a valuable consideration *547and prior to maturity indorsed for value by the payee to plaintiff and upon maturity duly presented and not paid.
The defendant’s answer is a general denial including a denial of the fact that the alleged payee indorsed the said note. Defendant’s answer set up a defense that the note was procured by fraud; was delivered by defendant with the name of the payee…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Joy v. . DiefendorfNew York Court of Appeals · 1891
- Gerard v. . McCormickNew York Court of Appeals · 1891
- American Exchange National Bank v. New York Belting & Packing Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1896
- The First National Bank v. . GreenNew York Court of Appeals · 1871
- Cohnfeld v. . TanenbaumNew York Court of Appeals · 1903
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Soma v. HandrulisNew York Court of Appeals · 1938
- Glas v. SalhoffAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1932
- National Bond & Investment Co. v. HowardAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1926
- Oxhandler v. Berrans Realty Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1930
- Winters National Bank and Trust Co. v. Greenberg Automotive & Radio Co.New York Supreme Court · 1930