Continental National Bank of Boston v. Strauss
The Superior Court of New York City
Appeals by the plaintiff from judgments entered in favor of the defendant Strauss after the dismissal as to him of the plaintiff’s complaint at trial term.
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.—McAdam, J.
The questions involved in both appeals are substantially alike, and in disposing of them we will take the facts of one case, for the law applicable to that applies equally to both.
The action was brought upon a promissory note- made by the defendant Klein for $2,749.81, dated October 23, 1884, payable six months after date, and endorsed by the firm of A. Hoexter & Co. The firm of A. Hoexter & Co. was a “ limited partnership ” formed under the laws of this state, and consisted of the defendants, Augustus Hoexter and Leo W. Hoexter, as general partners, and the…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Innes v. LansingNew York Court of Chancery · 1839
- Leland v. . CameronNew York Court of Appeals · 1865
- Van Ingen v. . WhitmanNew York Court of Appeals · 1875
- Prentice v. Zane's Administrator.Supreme Court of the United States · 1850
- Ames v. DowningNew York Surrogate's Court · 1850
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.