Hanna v. Lichtenhein
| Citation | 225 N.Y. 579,122 N.E. 625 |
| Parties | HANNA v. LICHTENHEIN et al. |
| Decision Date | 25 February 1919 |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
Action by William E. Hanna against Louis Lichtenhein and James Stern, partners trading under the firm name of Lichtenhein & Stern. From an order of the Appellate Division (182 App. Div. 94,169 N. Y. Supp. 589), affirming an order of the Special Term, sustaining plaintiff's demurrer to the defense to the several causes of action stated in defendants' answer, defendants appeal. Orders reversed.
See, also, 170 N. Y. Supp. 1084.
The action is brought to recover on five similar causes of action. In each cause of action it is alleged that on a day named, the Capital City Cap Company, a New Jersey corporation, assigned to Manufacturers' Finance Company, a Delaware corporation, and the assignor of the plaintiff certain accounts receivable, and that subsequent to such assignments the defendants collected the amounts due on the accounts receivable so assigned. Judgment is asked for the amount of the accounts so collected. The defendants answered each of said causes of action, and denied most of the allegations thereof, and as a separate defense to each of said causes of action alleged: That the cap company is domiciled in the state of New Jersey, and has its principal office and place for the transaction of business in Trenton, in said state. That at the time when said accounts receivable mentioned in the complaint were assigned and transferred to the finance company, ‘it was mutually agreed by and between Manufacturers' Finance Company and Capital City Cap Company that no notice that said accounts receivable would be or had been assigned, transferred, and set over by Capital City Cap Company to Manufacturers' Finance Company should be given to the debtors owing said accounts receivable, or to any other person, firm, or corporation, which said agreement was duly performed by Manufacturers' Finance Company and Capital City Cap Company.’ That thereafter the cap company warranted and represented to the defendants that it was the owner and holder of said accounts receivable, and that it had not assigned, transferred, or set over the same or any part thereof to any person, firm, or corporation. That thereupon the cap company, for a valuable consideration paid to it by the defendants duly assigned, transferred and set over to them by an instrument or instruments in writing the said accounts receivable. That the defendants immediately thereafter served upon and delivered to the debtors of the cap company a notice in writing that the said accounts receivable owing by them, respectively, had been assigned, transferred, and set over by the cap company to the defendants. That the defendants became bona fide holders for value of each of said accounts receivable, ‘without knowledge or notice of the right, title, or interest therein or thereto, if any, of either the Manufacturers' Finance Company or the plaintiff, or of the facts set forth in the complaint herein, or any of them.’
They further alleged as a part of the defense that said accounts receivable were assigned, transferred, and set over by the cap company to the finance company and to the defendants, in the state of New Jersey, and that the value advanced therefor, if any, by the finance company or plaintiff to the cap company was paid to said cap company in the states of New Jersey, Maryland, and Pennsylvania. They further alleged as a part of the defense:
‘That at all of the times in the complaint and herein mentioned it was and is the law of the state of New Jersey that, as between successive assignees of a chose in action due to the same assignor, the one which, being acquired without notice of prior ones, is first brought to the knowledge of the debtor is entitled to priority, and that claims of competing assignees of a chose in action rank as between themselves, not in the order of the dates of the assignments to them, but according to the dates when they respectively gave notice to the debtor of the assignment of their chose in action; and that if an assignee of a chose in action fails to give notice to the debtor owing the same, a subsequent assignee of the same chose in action without notice of the former assignment, will upon giving notice of his assignment acquire priority.’
There are similar allegations in the defense relating to the law of the states of Maryland and Pennsylvania. The plaintiff demurred to the defense upon the ground that it is insufficient in law upon the face thereof.Daniel P. Hays, of New York City, for appellants.
William F. Allen, of New York City, for respondent.
(after stating the facts as above). Did the plaintiff by his demurrer admit the allegations of the defense relating to the law of sister states? If the law of said sister states...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Richards v. Richards
...state should have been set out in the bill as a fact before being susceptible of consideration on demurrer. In Hanna v. Lichtenhein, 225 N. Y. 579, 582,122 N. E. 625, 627, occurs this: ‘No court is to be charged with the knowledge of foreign laws; but they are well understood to be facts, w......
-
Succession of Marinoni
...when the statute upon which the case rests is set forth and the decisions under it are also referred to as evidence of the law." In Hanna v. Lichtenhein, the Court of Appeals of New York the proposition, thus: "An allegation in a pleading of the law of a sister state is, as we have stated, ......
-
Scheer v. Rockne Motors Corporation
...notwithstanding conflicting testimony of experts. Finney v. Guy, 189 U. S. 335, 342, 23 S. Ct. 558, 47 L. Ed. 839; Hanna v. Lichtenhein, 225 N. Y. 579, 122 N. E. 625; Fitzpatrick v. International Ry. Co., 252 N. Y. 127, 169 N. E. 112, 68 A. L. R. 801; Tarbell v. Grand Trunk Ry. Co., 96 Vt. ......
-
Fitzpatrick v. Int'l Ry. Co.
...Bank of China, Japan & The Straits v. Morse, 168 N. Y. 458, 61 N. E. 774,56 L. R. A. 139, 85 Am. St. Rep. 676. In Hanna v. Lichtenhein, 225 N. Y. 579, 122 N. E. 625, 627, this court said: ‘On a trial of an issue of fact, when the evidence furnished is conflicting or inconclusive, the law of......