Case ID: nys_31/html/1134-17.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "FITZSIMONS, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

WALLACE, Appellant, v. KAEMPF, Respondent.
    (City Court of New York, General Term.
    December 17, 1894.)
    Action by Thomas P. Wallace, as surviving partner, etc., against Herman Kaempf, etc.
    George W. Wallace, for appellant.
    Hahn, Myers & Bronner, for respondent.
   FITZSIMONS, J.

The complaint was rightfully dismissed. There is nothing in the evidence submitted showing that plaintiff parted with any security or claim which they held against Bartz in consideration of the note in suit, or that they even extended the term of credit,—in fact it seems that they parted with nothing of value; therefore the note sued upon is void for the want of consideration. The judgment must therefore be affirmed, with costs.