Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Citrin v. Tansey

Decided: February 2, 1931.

PHILIP CITRIN AND SAMUEL ELKIN, TRADING AS CITRIN & ELKIN, RESPONDENTS,
v.
MICHAEL J. TANSEY, APPELLANT



On appeal from the Supreme Court, whose per curiam is printed in 7 N.J. Mis. R. 881.

For the appellant, Michael J. Tansey and Francis J. Tansey.

For the respondents, Benjamin Gershenson (Grossman & Kwalick, on the brief).

Wells

The opinion of the court was delivered by

WELLS, J. This suit was brought in the First District Court of the city of Newark, by Philip Citrin and Samuel Elkin, trading as Citrin and Elkin, to recover the amount due upon two promissory notes, executed by the defendant, Michael J. Tansey, to the firm of Nelson & Duchin, who were doing some painting and paperhanging work for the defendant on his farm at Colt's Neck.

The notes were given in payment for this work. A day or two after the notes were given, and long before they became due, they were assigned by Nelson & Duchin to the plaintiffs, who were creditors of Nelson & Duchin.

At the hearing in the District Court before the judge and a jury, the court directed a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs, upon the theory that they were bona fide holders of these two notes in due course, and for value, and that the defense offered by defendant to the effect that there was a failure of consideration on the part of the original payees of the notes, was not available to defendant.

The defendant thereupon appealed to the Supreme Court, which affirmed the judgment of the District Court.

From this judgment of the Supreme Court, defendant now appeals to this court.

It is undisputed that the notes were assigned by the payees to the plaintiffs before their maturity.

There is no evidence that at the time plaintiffs took these notes they had any knowledge that the defendant had a defense against the payees which would prevent the payees from collecting the amount called for by the notes.

There was nothing to show at the time plaintiffs took the notes that they knew that the work for which the notes were given by the defendant to Nelson & Duchin had been improperly done.

The testimony of the plaintiffs was that they took these notes in payment for merchandise sold to Nelson & Duchin and that they gave Nelson & Duchin ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.