Chemical National Bank v. Kohner
New York Court of Common Pleas
Appeal by the plaintiff from a judgment of this court dismissing the complaint, entered on the report of a referee to hear and determine the issues. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtLarremore, J.
In November, 1872, the firm of Griffith & Prentiss made and executed to their own order their four _several promissory notes, amounting in the aggregate to '$15,330 20, which said notes were endorsed by said Griffith & Prentiss and Joseph Kohner, the defendant’s intestate. When said notes became due the said firm were unable to pay the same in full. At this time said firm were indebted to the Bank of New York and the Central Bank of New York upon notes upon which also said Joseph Kohner was endorser. For the purpose of making a composition of their debts with the banks above mentioned,…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Bank of United States v. DunnSupreme Court of the United States · 1832
- Adriance v. RoomNew York Supreme Court · 1868
- Elwell v. DodgeNew York Supreme Court · 1861
- Bank of Pennsylvania v. ReedSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1841
- Watson v. Bennett & WhiteNew York Supreme Court · 1851
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- McLean v. St. Paul & Chicago Railway Co.New York Court of Common Pleas · 1886
- McLean v. St. Paul & Chicago Railway Co.New York Court of Common Pleas · 1886
- Root v. OlcottNew York Supreme Court · 1886
- Root v. OlcottNew York Supreme Court · 1886
- Schild v. Quality Furs, Inc.Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · 1958