Legal Opinion

Austin, Nichols & Co. v. Collingwood Chestnut Bar Corp.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Decided January 23, 1958Published

1Per curiam

The papers sufficiently raise questions of fact as to notice of presentment, dishonor and protest and timeliness thereof, which should be passed upon by trial rather than determined upon a motion for summary judgment. Moreover, failure to give notice of dishonor and protest for nonpayment to the indorsers is not excused by reason of the fact that they were officers of the corporate maker of the dishonored note. They are entitled to the statutory notice when they are sought to be held secondarily liable (Goldstein v. Brastone Corp., 254 App. Div. 288, affd. 279 N. Y. 775; Shenkin v. Grant, 3…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Goldstein v. Brastone Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1938
  2. Goldstein v. Brastone Corporation, BrasslerNew York Court of Appeals · 1939
  3. Shenkin v. GrantNew York Supreme Court · 1956

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API