Legal Opinion

Schumacher v. Miller

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Decided June 5, 1930PublishedCited by 5 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBanks, J.

This note, executed December 30th, 1922, was, because of the provision therein for the payment of taxes, a non-negotiable note under the then existing statutory provisions. Mechanics Bank v. Johnson, 104 Conn. 696, 134 Atl. 231. In Mazurkiewicz v. Dowholonek, 111 Conn. 65, 149 Atl. 234, decided since this case was tried, we held that Chapter 146 of the Public Acts of 1927, which purported to validate and confirm the negotiability of such notes theretofore executed, was ineffective to change their character from that of nonnegotiable to that of negotiable instruments. This case was tried upon…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Kinsel v. BallouCalifornia Supreme Court · 1907
  2. Mechanics Bank v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1926
  3. Mazurkiewicz v. DowholonekSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1930
  4. Warneke v. PreissnerSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1925
  5. Pratt, Read & Co. v. New York, New Haven & Hartford RailroadSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1925

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

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Young v. TynanSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1961
  2. Berkowitz v. KasparewiczSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1936
  3. Piascyk v. MalonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1933
  4. Teton Auto Co. v. Northwestern Pure Bred Sow Co.Wyoming Supreme Court · 1935
  5. Joseloff v. BergConnecticut Superior Court · 1936

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

Powered by the Exa API