Legal Opinion

Rodd v. Kamen Products Co.

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

Decided May 23, 1949Published

1Opinion of the Court

The assignment delivered to plaintiff was void. (Manhattan Commercial Co. v. Paul, 216 N. Y. 481; Martin v. National Sur. Co., 300 U. S. 588; McKenzie v. Irving Trust Co., 292 N. Y. 347.) It was not executed in accordance with Federal law. (U. S. Code, tit. 31, § 203, U. S. Rev. Stat., § 3477.) No warrant for payment had issued and payment thereunder had not been made. The United States was a creditor of the corporation. The assignment had no present value and, therefore, could not work a dis*856charge of the notes. (Wise v. Chase, 44 N. Y. 337, 340.) At best it was a conditional payment of the…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Martin v. National Surety Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1937
  2. McKenzie v. Irving Trust Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1944
  3. Manhattan Commercial Co. v. . PaulNew York Court of Appeals · 1916
  4. Wise v. . ChaseNew York Court of Appeals · 1871
  5. Cherey v. McLaughlinNew York Court of Appeals · 1927

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

Powered by the Exa API