Prudential Savings Bank v. Tomassone
New York Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtLouis L. Friedman, J.
Plaintiff moves for summary judgment in an action based upon a promissory note. Plaintiff contends that it is a holder in due course and that the defenses and facts submitted by the defendants, may not be chargeable to this plaintiff.
The note in question was given by the defendants to the Amalgamated Construction Co., Inc., hereinafter designated as Amalgamated. It was purportedly given in payment of an obligation which arose under a contract made by the defendants with the said Amalgamated for certain improvements on the home owned and occupied by said defendants. The defense herein…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Ledwich v. . McKimNew York Court of Appeals · 1873
- Town of Solon v. Williamsburgh Savings BankNew York Court of Appeals · 1889
- National Exchange Bank v. LesterNew York Court of Appeals · 1909
- The Chemung Canal Bank v. . BradnerNew York Court of Appeals · 1871
- Linick v. A. J. Nutting & Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1910
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- United States v. TholenDistrict Court, N.D. Iowa · 1960
- Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co. v. EisenstadtNew York Supreme Court · 1970
- United States v. BrownleeDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 1958