Legal Opinion

DH Cattle Holdings Co. v. Reinoso

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided October 17, 1991PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

— Mikoll, J.

Appeal from that part of an order of the Supreme Court (Mugglin, J.), entered January 24, 1991 in Delaware County, which granted defendant’s cross motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action.

This appeal presents two questions for our review (1) whether a note providing that the amount of interest payable at maturity was "[t]o be determined” was not a negotiable instrument because it did not contain a "sum certain”, and (2) whether the instrument is enforceable as a simple contract. In our view Supreme Court properly ruled that the note was nonnegotiable…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. DH Cattle Holdings Co. v. KuntzAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1991
  2. Spielman v. Acme National Sales Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1990

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Ingram v. EarthmanCourt of Appeals of Tennessee · 1998
  2. DH Cattle Holdings Co. v. SmithAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1994
  3. DH Cattle Holdings Co. v. RenoAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1993
  4. DH Cattle Holdings Co. v. BarreseAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1993
  5. Ireland v. J.L.'s Auto Sales, Inc.Arcadia Justice Court · 1992

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

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

Powered by the Exa API