Century Bank v. Breitbart
City of New York Municipal Court
Action against the maker and indorser of a promsory note, judgment being taken against the maker by default.
1Opinion of the CourtRansom, J.
The question submitted for my determination, without a jury, was, in substance, whether the plaintiff bank has sufficiently shown that notice of protest was given to the defendant Berta Breitbart, indorser on a promissory note made and delivered by her husband, or whether she was discharged from liability as such indorser by reason of the bank’s failure to give her such notice. Neg. Inst. Law, § 160. In addition to an answer which put the allegation of notice in issue, the defendant Berta Breitbart served and filed an affidavit (Code Civ. Pro. § 923), denying that she had ever received any…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Feigenspan v. McDonnellMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1909
- Cuming v. RoderickAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1898
- Union Bank of Brooklyn v. DeshelAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1910
- Montgomery County Bank v. . MarshNew York Court of Appeals · 1852
- Bartlett v. . RobinsonNew York Court of Appeals · 1868
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- In re the Accounting of MulliganNew York Surrogate's Court · 1953
- Bovay v. FullerCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1933
- Arnett v. ClackArizona Supreme Court · 1921
- Bank of the United States v. LunenfeldNew York Supreme Court · 1937
- McGrath v. FrancoliniCity of New York Municipal Court · 1915