Simpson v. Hefter
City of New York Municipal Court
Action upon a promissory note. Defense usury. Upon motion for a direction of a verdict the court after stipulation to that effect discharged the jury and reserved decision upon the questions presented.
1Opinion of the CourtDelehanty, J.
The action is against a second indorser upon a promissory note for $1,000, dated New York, May 14, 1903, made by one Marx to the order of himself, payable four months after date, at his office, in the said city. The note bears the indorsements of said Marx, the defendant Hefter and the firm of Goldberg & Harrison, in the order named, and, according to the undisputed evidence, was so made and indorsed by Marx and Hefter respectively, without value, and at the request and for the accommodation of Goldberg & Harrison, who then indorsed and delivered the same to the plaintiff for the sum of $940,…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Orvis v. . CurtissNew York Court of Appeals · 1899
- Dickinson v. . EdwardsNew York Court of Appeals · 1879
- Eastman v. . ShawNew York Court of Appeals · 1875
- National Bank v. . LewisNew York Court of Appeals · 1878
- Jewell v. . WrightNew York Court of Appeals · 1864
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Tucker v. FoutsSupreme Court of Florida · 1917