Legal Opinion

Brill v. Brandt

New York Supreme Court

Decided February 14, 1941PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtValente, J.

The contention that plaintiffs were discharged from liability upon the note by the discharge of Brandt, despite the bank’s reservation of its rights against all other parties to the instrument, is based upon subdivision 3 of section 201 of the Negotiable Instruments Law. Under the prov.sions of a subsequent statute, however, the obligee’s release or discharge of one or more of several obligors does not discharge co-obligors against whom the obligee, in writing, as part of the same transaction as the release or discharge, expressly reserves his rights. (Debtor and Creditor Law, § 234.) All the…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Crow v. . GleasonNew York Court of Appeals · 1894
  2. Blanchard v. . BlanchardNew York Court of Appeals · 1911
  3. National Park Bank v. . KoehlerNew York Court of Appeals · 1912
  4. Spies v. . National City BankNew York Court of Appeals · 1903
  5. Butler v. WrightNew York Supreme Court · 1829

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Dawson v. Fidelity and Deposit Company of MarylandDistrict Court, D. South Dakota · 1961
  2. Meyn v. SchutteNew York Supreme Court · 1959
  3. In re the Estate of HydeNew York Surrogate's Court · 1941
  4. Pilch v. GraySuperior Court of Delaware · 1955
  5. Salomon v. Graphic Communications Corp. (In Re IMFC Financial Corp.)United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · 1981

7 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