Galusha Stove Co. v. Pivnick Construction Co.
New York Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtRodenbeck, J.
The complaint alleges the transfer of the note in question to the plaintiff for value and before maturity. The answer denies the transfer for value and sets up an agreement between the original parties to the note to repair or replace any gas ranges and gas stoves that were not in good condition. On the motion for summary judgment the plaintiff alleges that the note was transferred for value received and without notice of any fact tending to impair or affect the validity thereof. The defendants meet this allegation by the statement that the plaintiff took the note “ with knowledge ” of the…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Coyne v. KrempelsCalifornia Supreme Court · 1950
- McComsey v. LeafCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1939
- People Ex Rel. Chapman v. City of Garden GroveCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1958
- Cowan Oil & Refining Co. v. Miley Petroleum Corp.Appellate Division of the Superior Court of California · 1931
- Rheinstein v. CaseNew York Supreme Court · 1960
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.