Case ID: nys_149/html/0984-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "BIJUR, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

McCONKEY v. TEHUANTEPEC RUBBER CULTURE CO.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department.
    November 19, 1914.)
    Bonds (§ 120*) — Actions—Defenses.
    In an action on unpaid coupons detached from a mortgage bond made by a corporation, a plea that it would be inequitable to permit the holder of such coupons to secure a preference over other creditors presented no defense.
    [Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Bonds, Cent. Dig. §§ 139-147; Dec. Dig. § 120.*]
    Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, First District.
    Action by Henry A. McConkey against the Tehuantepec Rubber Culture Company. From a judgment dismissing the complaint after a trial by the judge without a jury, plaintiff appeals.
    Reversed, and new trial granted.
    Argued October term, 1914, before SEABURY, BITUR, and COHALAN, JJ.
    Atkins B. Cunningham, of New York City, for appellant.
    Maerkle & Maerkle, of New York City (Frederick B. Maerkle, of New York City, of counsel), for respondent. '
   BIJUR, J.

Plaintiff sues as a holder of certain unpaid coupons detached from a mortgage bond made by the defendant. The only plea made by defendant, on this appeal, to sustain the judgment, is that it would be inequitable to permit the holder of these negotiable coupons to secure a preference over other creditors.

As this is no answer to a claim on the debt evidenced by the coupons, the judgment must be reversed, and a new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide the event. All concur.