Continental National Bank v. Strauss
The Superior Court of the City of New York and Buffalo
Appeal from jury term. Action by the Continental Hational Bank of Boston against Hatlian Klein, Augustus Hoexter, Henry W. Strauss, and Leo W. Hoexter, composing the firm of A. Hoexter & Co., on a promissory note indorsed by such firm. Strauss answered, setting up that he was a special partner. Judgment was entered by default against the others. Plaintiff appeals from a judgment dismissing the complaint as against Strauss.
1Opinion of the CourtMcAdam, 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 á promissory note made by the defendant Klein for $2,749.81; dated October 23, 1884, payable six months after date, and indorsed 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 respondent Henry W. Strauss, as…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Innes v. LansingNew York Court of Chancery · 1839
- Van Ingen v. . WhitmanNew York Court of Appeals · 1875
- Baldwin v. . Van DeusenNew York Court of Appeals · 1868
- Slocum v. Hooker & CatlinNew York Supreme Court · 1852
- Whitewright v. StimpsonNew York Supreme Court · 1848
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- United States v. SilversteinDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1965