Legal Opinion
Goldberg v. Albert
New York City Court
Decided December 1, 1936PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Lewis (David C.), J.
The following promissory note was executed, and upon it this plaintiff, the payee, now sues:
“ 200 00/xx June 13 1936
“ September 1, 1936 after date we promise to pay to the order of George Goldberg Two Hundred Dollars and No 00/100 * * * Dollars at National City Bank 86th St. Branch “ Value received. NEW AMSTERDAM DELICATESSEN
Harry Albert
“ No. Due Sept. 1, 1936 B. Siglin ”
The defendant Albert defaulted. The defendant Siglin pleads that he signed the note for the accommodation of his codefendant, that the plaintiff accepted the same with full knowledge; that the plaintiff…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Baldwin's Bank of Penn Yan v. SmithNew York Court of Appeals · 1915
- Pain v. PackardNew York Supreme Court · 1816
- Hubbard v. . GurneyNew York Court of Appeals · 1876
- Brown v. . CurtissNew York Court of Appeals · 1849
- Blanchard v. . BlanchardNew York Court of Appeals · 1911
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Welch v. CampbellNew York Supreme Court · 1950
- Pearis v. GoldschmidtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1971
- Murray v. BronnerDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1962