Case ID: ny_235/html/0532-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

General Investment Company, Respondent, v. Inter-borough Rapid Transit Company, Appellant. Clarence H. Venner, Respondent, v. Interborough Rapid Transit Company, Appellant. Continental Securities Company, Respondent, v. Interborough Rapid Transit Company, Appellant.
    
      Constitutional law — summary judgment — right to trial by jury — bills, notes and checks — action to recover on promissory notes.
    
    
      General Investment Co. v. Interborough R. Tr. Co., 202 App. Div. 804, affirmed.
    
      Venner v. Interborough R. Tr. Co., 202 App. Div. 804, affirmed.
    
      Continental Securities Co. v. Interborough R. Tr. Co., 202 App. Div. 804, affirmed.
    (Argued December 8, 1922;
    decided February 27, 1923.)
    Appeal in each of the above-entitled actions from a judgment, entered July 5, 1922, upon an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department which unanimously affirmed an order of Special Term granting a motion by plaintiff for summary judgment under rule 113 of the Rules of Civil Practice. The complaints alleged the making and delivery by the defendant of a series of promissory notes of $1,000 each, payable to bearer, or if registered to the registered holder thereof, with interest at seven per cent, on the 1st day of September, 1921, at the office of J. P. Morgan & Company. It alleged further that the plaintiff is and was the owner and legal holder of certain of said notes, payable to bearer; that said notes were duly presented for payment, and payment demanded, which was refused, and no part of the principal of said notes had been paid. The answer admitted the making, presentment, demand, refusal and non-payment of the notes specified in the complaint, but attempted to put in issue by a denial of knowledge or information thereof sufficient to form a belief, the plaintiff’s ownership of the notes. Defendant in each action contended that it had been deprived of its right to a trial by jury granted to it by the Constitution of this state.
    A. H. Cole and James L. Quackenbush for appellants.
    
      Elijah N. Zoline for respondent.
   Judgment in each case affirmed, with costs, on opinion of Hogan, J., in General Investment Co. v. Interborough Rapid Transit Co. (235 N. Y. 133).

Concur: His cock, Ch. J., Hogan, Cabdozo, Pound, McLaughlin, Crane and Andrews, JJ.