Legal Opinion

Lubetkin v. D. S. Stern & Co.

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

Decided March 15, 1928PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Order reversed upon the law and the facts, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion denied, with ten dollars costs. Plaintiffs, not being the actual borrowers, may not maintain this action to cancel the alleged usurious notes, and for the return of collateral given thereunder, without restoring, or offering to restore, to defendant the sum or sums actually received by their testator. (Buckingham v. Corning, 91 N. Y. 525.) The complaint failing, for this reason, to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, the injunction pendente lite was improperly granted. Lazansky,…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Buckingham v. . CorningNew York Court of Appeals · 1883

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. In re the Estate of SextonNew York Surrogate's Court · 1944
  2. Metz v. GuntherAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1961
  3. Singer v. LichtmanAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1937

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API