Legal Opinion
D. S. Stern & Co. v. Pizitz
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided April 6, 1934PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtO’Malley, J.
We are of opinion that with respect to the 14,000 note made by the defendant as accommodation maker, and transferred by the corporate payee by indorsement to the plaintiff for the loan, the defendant may not raise the defense of usury. *510The note had no inception as a negotiable instrument until trans- j ferred for value. (Kennedy v. Heyman, 183 App. Div. 421.) j This is conceded by the defendant. Any. exaction of interest for more than the legal rate then took place. The corporate payee which received the money at the inception of the note could not plead such defense. (General Business Law, §…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Wheeler v. . NewbouldNew York Court of Appeals · 1857
- Rosa v. . ButterfieldNew York Court of Appeals · 1865
- Field v. SibleyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1902
- Mercantile Factors Corp. v. Warner Bros. Pictures, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1926
- Pelonsky v. WattendorfMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1926
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Spadaro v. Chenango County National Bank & Trust Co.New York Supreme Court · 1935
- Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. FriedlandDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1991
- Tchlenoff v. DynerNew York Supreme Court · 1942
- In re the Liquidation of New York Title & Mortgage Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1937
- Werger v. Haines Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1950