Legal Opinion

Coopersmith v. Maunz

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

Decided March 15, 1933Published

1Dissent

Taylor, J. (dissenting).

I cannot join with the majority of the court in holding that this plaintiff should recover as a matter of law. On the appeal from prior judgments in favor of defendants we expressed the view that it was a fair jury question whether or not plaintiff had fulfilled his obligation (Neg. Inst. Law, § 98) to prove that he was a holder in due course (227 App. Div. 119, 122). I find nothing in the present record pointing to a different conclusion. The only additional testimony aiding plaintiff in this behalf is that of the witness Korn, and this testimony is of no material…

Also in this document: Concurrence.

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Canajoharie National Bank v. DiefendorfNew York Court of Appeals · 1890
  2. Second National Bank v. WestonNew York Court of Appeals · 1902
  3. Magee v. . BadgerNew York Court of Appeals · 1866
  4. Tradesmen's National Bank v. CurtisNew York Court of Appeals · 1901
  5. Kelso Co. v. . EllisNew York Court of Appeals · 1918

6 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