Legal Opinion

Elterman v. Friedman

New York Supreme Court

Decided November 29, 1925Published

1Opinion of the CourtProskauer, J.

The payee of a promissory note here sues an irregular indorser. The defendant has given notice to examine the plaintiff before trial, which plaintiff moves to vacate. As to the defense of payment, the motion will be denied. As to failure of presentment and notice, the motion will be granted.

The real controversy turns on the right of the defendant to examine as to the defense of usury. Since the decision of Sabine v. Paine (223 N. Y. 401) it is at least open to argument that any *35indorser may defend on the ground of usury against any holder. But the determination of the present controversy does…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Sabine v. . PaineNew York Court of Appeals · 1918
  2. Bruck v. LambeckCity of New York Municipal Court · 1909
  3. Kass v. BlumbergAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · 1913

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

Powered by the Exa API