Hoppe v. Russo-Asiatic Bank
| Decision Date | 30 January 1923 |
| Citation | 235 N.Y. 37,138 N.E. 497 |
| Parties | HOPPE v. RUSSO-ASIATIC BANK. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Action by Olga I. Hoppe against Russo-Asiatic Bank. From a judgment of the Appellate Division (200 App. Div. 460,193 N. Y. Supp. 250), unanimously affirming a judgment for plaintiff entered on a verdict directed by the court, defendant by permission appeals.
Affirmed.
The complaint set up two causes of action. The first alleged the residence of the plaintiff in this state; that defendant is a Russian banking corporation; that a firm known as B. B. Hoppe & Co. was of the nature of a corporation or special partnership organized and existing under the laws of Russia; that on January 15, 1918, defendant at its Paris branch received from the Société des Forces Motrices et Usines de l'Arve a check on the National Bank of Credit for the sum of 559,000 francs, the proceeds of which it agreed to pay to B. B. Hoppe & Co., or upon its order, at defendant's London office; that on the 18th day of January, 1918, defendant collected this check; that on or about January 30, 1918, a demand was made for the payment of the proceeds thereof in pounds sterling upon defendant's London branch; that the defendant refused to make such payment, and that on May 22, 1919, the cause of action was assigned by Hoppe & Co. to the plaintiff. The second cause of action repeated most of the allegations of the first cause of action, and set up that, on or about January 18, 1918, the defendant received for the use of Hoppe & Co. the sum of 559,000 francs, which, although duly demanded, defendant refused to pay.
The measure of damages adopted by the trial court in directing the verdict and approved by the Appellate Division was the value in United States currency of the sterling equivalent of the 559,000 francs on the date of the alleged demand. Defendant contended that their value on the date of rendition of judgment should be the measure of damages.
Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First department.
Joseph H. Choate, Jr., and Maurice Leon, both of New York City, for appellant.
Joseph M. Hartfield and Vermont Hatch, both of New York City, for respondent.
The judgment appealed from should be affirmed, with costs.
Held: In an action properly brought in the courts of this state by a citizen or an alien to recover damages, liquidated or unliquidated, for breach of contract or for a tort, where primarily the plaintiff is entitled to recover a sum...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Vishipco Line v. Chase Manhattan Bank, N. A.
...257 N.Y. 333, 339-40, 178 N.E. 550 (1931); Richard v. American Union Bank, 241 N.Y. 163, 149 N.E. 338 (1925); Hoppe v. Russo-Asiatic Bank, 235 N.Y. 37, 39, 138 N.E. 497 (1923); Brill v. Chase Manhattan Bank, 14 A.D.2d 852, 220 N.Y.S.2d 903, (1st Dep't 1961); Librairie Hachette, S.A. v. Pari......
-
Competex, S.A. v. LaBow, 329
...v. Hoppe, 257 N.Y. 333, 178 N.E. 550 (1931); Richard v. American Union Bank, 241 N.Y. 163, 149 N.E. 338 (1925); Hoppe v. Russo-Asiatic Bank, 235 N.Y. 37, 138 N.E. 497 (1923); Brill v. Chase Manhattan Bank, 14 A.D.2d 852, 220 N.Y.S.2d 903 (1st Dep't 1961); Librairie Hachette, S.A. v. Paris B......
-
Shaw, Savill, Albion & Co. v. The Fredericksburg
...1 K.B. 72; The The Ottoman Bank v. Chakarian, 1930 A.C. 277. 16 Restatement of Conflict of Laws, § 424, Comment. 17 Hoppe v. Russo-Asiatic Bank, 235 N.Y. 37, 138 N.E. 497; Richard v. American Union Bank, 241 N.Y. 163, 167, 168, 149 N.E. 338, 43 A.L.R. 512; Sokoloff v. National City Bank, 25......
-
Wagner v. Braunsberg
...the assignment is valid and the action may be maintained (Hoppe v. Russo-Asiatic Bank, 200 App.Div. 460, 193 N.Y.S. 250, affirmed 235 N.Y. 37, 138 N.E. 497). If an assignment is adequate to overcome statutory or decisional prohibition against the use of our courts by certain assignors, then......