From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bohrer v. Auslander

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department
Feb 19, 1929
133 Misc. 597 (N.Y. App. Term 1929)

Opinion

February 19, 1929.

Appeal from the City Court of the City of New York, county of Bronx.

Frank, Weil Strouse [ Samuel F. Frank, of counsel], for the appellant.

Wachtell, Manheim Grouf [ Harold Manheim of counsel] for the respondent.


Assuming the truth of the plaintiff's testimony that the defendant directed plaintiff to give to Hollander an assignment in black and white of plaintiff's interest in the Ashland Holding Corporation, plaintiff's letter to Hollander with the acceptance of Hollander noted thereon was an acceptance and receipt of the chose in action by defendant within the meaning of the statute. (Pers. Prop. Law, § 85, subd. 1, as added by Laws of 1911, chap. 571.)

Moreover, we regard the giving of the notes by defendant as a payment within the meaning of the statute, for the reasons stated by Mr. Justice SHIENTAG in Ablett Co. v. Sencer ( 130 Misc. 416).

Judgment reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event.

All concur; present, BIJUR, PETERS and FRANKENTHALER, JJ.


Summaries of

Bohrer v. Auslander

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department
Feb 19, 1929
133 Misc. 597 (N.Y. App. Term 1929)
Case details for

Bohrer v. Auslander

Case Details

Full title:MORRIS J. BOHRER, Appellant, v. MEYER H. AUSLANDER, Respondent

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department

Date published: Feb 19, 1929

Citations

133 Misc. 597 (N.Y. App. Term 1929)
233 N.Y.S. 182

Citing Cases

In re Uni-Products, Inc.

For the reasons discussed, the better view is that a promissory note is indistinguishable from a check for…