Case Name: SKOLSKY v. HARVITT
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1910-03-10
Citations: 121 N.Y.S. 592
Docket Number: 
Parties: SKOLSKY v. HARVITT.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 121
Pages: 592–592

Head Matter:
SKOLSKY v. HARVITT.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term.
March 10, 1910.)
Payment (§ 22 )—Checks.
Where defendant gave plaintiff a postdated check In payment for goods purchased, and plaintiff Indorsed it to a third party, who still holds it, this constituted payment, although the check has not been paid, and was a complete defense to an action for the price of the goods.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Payment, Cent. Dig. §§ 87, 88; Dec. Dig. § 22.*]
Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Second District.
Action by Jacob Skolsky against Louis Harvitt. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.
Reversed, and new trial ordered.
Argued before SEABURY, GUY, and WHITNEY, JJ.
Kahn & Hegt, for appellant.
Elias E. ICohner, for respondent.
For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
GUY, J.
This is an appeal by defendant from "judgment in favor of plaintiff. The action is for goods sold and delivered; the only defense being payment. The evidence shows that defendant gave to plaintiff a postdated check in payment of the amount due, which check was never paid, but that plaintiff had parted with possession of the check "by indorsing and delivering it to a third party, who still retains possession thereof. Under the authority of Fitch v. McDowell, 145 N. Y. 498, 40 N. E. 205, this constitutes payment, and is a complete defense to this action.
The judgment should therefore be reversed,, and a new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event. A1Í concur.