Case Name: Albert B. Gross et al., Copartners under the Firm Name of Gross, Engel & Co., Respondents, v. Arthur Mendel et al., Copartners under the Firm Name of Albert Mendel & Co., Appellants
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1918-12-10
Citations: 225 N.Y. 633
Docket Number: 
Parties: Albert B. Gross et al., Copartners under the Firm Name of Gross, Engel & Co., Respondents, v. Arthur Mendel et al., Copartners under the Firm Name of Albert Mendel & Co., Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 225
Pages: 633–634

Head Matter:
Albert B. Gross et al., Copartners under the Firm Name of Gross, Engel & Co., Respondents, v. Arthur Mendel et al., Copartners under the Firm Name of Albert Mendel & Co., Appellants.
Gross v. Mendel, 171 App. Div. 237, affirmed.
(Argued November 25, 1918;
decided December 10, 1918.)
Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first' judicial department, entered April 18, 1916, modifying and affirming as modified a judgment in favor of plaintiffs entered upon a decision of the court at a Trial Term without a jury. Plaintiffs sought to recover from defendants upon three causes of action wherein they set forth in substance that on April 15, 1914, defendants, at London, England, accepted a bill of exchange drawn by and payable to plaintiffs at Leipsig, Germany, on August 15, 1914, in the sum of 7,000 marks (German money); that on February 24, 1914, defendants likewise accepted a bill of exchange, drawn by and payable to plaintiffs at the same place on September 30, 1914, in the sum of 8,000 marks; that on April 22, 1914, defendants accepted a third bill of exchange, similarly drawn and payable at the same place on December 31, 1914, in the sum of 2,000 marks. It was alleged, in respect of these three bills, that they were not paid when presented therefor at Leipsig and were thereupon protested at a varying expense to plaintiffs. The question litigated was as to the rate of exchange which, should be the measure of defendants’ liability. They contended that the rate of exchange existing at the time of the trial should govern. The Appellate Division held as a matter of law that all of said bills of exchange were to be converted into money of the United States at the rate of exchange between Leipsig and New York prevailing'at the time of maturity of each of said bills of exchange.
James Garfield Moses for appellants.
Benjamin Berger for respondents.

Opinion:
Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.
Concur: His cock, Ch. J., Chase, Hogan, Caedozo, Pound and Andeews, JJ. Not sitting: McLaughlin, J.