holder claim in New York

2010Notably, a federal district court applying Connecticut law dismissed a holder claim similar to that asserted by the Foundation on the ground that “the claims for damages based on the plaintiffs’ failure to sell or hedge their stock are too speculative to be actionable” (Chanoff v United States Surgical Corp., 857 F Supp 1011, 1018 [D Conn 1994], affd 31 F3d 66 [2d Cir 1994], cert denied 513 US 1058 [1994]).

2010Notably, a federal district court applying Connecticut law dismissed a holder claim similar to that asserted by the Foundation on the ground that “the claims for damages based on the plaintiffs’ failure to sell or hedge their stock are too speculative to be actionable” (Chanoff v United States Surgical Corp., 857 F Supp 1011, 1018 [D Conn 1994], affd 31 F3d 66 [2d Cir 1994], cert denied 513 US 1058 [1994]).

2007(See, Meyer v Supreme Lodge, Knights of Pythias, 178 NY 63 [1904] [physician-patient relationship established when unconscious person is treated by a physician].) The reason for this is clear — the patient, and no one else, is the holder of the privilege.

1937Bank, 228 N. Y. 37, 45 .) Where an agent, in this case Horvatt, uses a check or other negotiable instrument of his principal to pay his individual debt, the “ infirmity in the instrument ” or “ defect in the title ” appears on the face of the instrument, i. e., from the “ form ” thereof, and bad faith, or notice putting the holder on inquiry, is thereby shown as matter of law.

1934A court is not authorized to make an exception to relieve from hardship or to aid apparent equities.” (Tynan v. Walker, 35 Cal. 634 ; Sichel v. Carrillo, 42 id. 493 .) As was said in Estate of Hildebrandt ( 92 Cal. 433, 436 ; 28 P. 486 ): “ The statute is imperative and applies to all claims arising upon contracts.

1934A court is not authorized to make an exception to relieve from hardship or to aid apparent equities.” (Tynan v. Walker, 35 Cal. 634 ; Sichel v. Carrillo, 42 id. 493 .) As was said in Estate of Hildebrandt ( 92 Cal. 433, 436 ; 28 P. 486 ): “ The statute is imperative and applies to all claims arising upon contracts.

1934A court is not authorized to make an exception to relieve from hardship or to aid apparent equities.” (Tynan v. Walker, 35 Cal. 634 ; Sichel v. Carrillo, 42 id. 493 .) As was said in Estate of Hildebrandt ( 92 Cal. 433, 436 ; 28 P. 486 ): “ The statute is imperative and applies to all claims arising upon contracts.

1934A court is not authorized to make an exception to relieve from hardship or to aid apparent equities.” (Tynan v. Walker, 35 Cal. 634 ; Sichel v. Carrillo, 42 id. 493 .) As was said in Estate of Hildebrandt ( 92 Cal. 433, 436 ; 28 P. 486 ): “ The statute is imperative and applies to all claims arising upon contracts.

1914A. 551 , the court, in interpreting section 68, holds that the definition of the word “debt” as given in the Bankrupt Act, to wit, “shall include any debt, demand, or claim provable in bankruptcy,” applies to the word when used in section 68, and continues: “To determine, therefore, whether the holder of a claim is entitled to the benefit of section 68, it is necessary only to inquire whether his claim is one provable in bankruptcy.” TJiat case was followed in Steinhardt v. National Park Bank, 120 App. Div. 255 , 105 N. Y.

1914A. 551 , the court, in interpreting section 68, holds that the definition of the word “debt” as given in the Bankrupt Act, to wit, “shall include any debt, demand, or claim provable in bankruptcy,” applies to the word when used in section 68, and continues: “To determine, therefore, whether the holder of a claim is entitled to the benefit of section 68, it is necessary only to inquire whether his claim is one provable in bankruptcy.” TJiat case was followed in Steinhardt v. National Park Bank, 120 App. Div. 255 , 105 N. Y.

1892Munger v. Bank, 85 N. Y. 580 ; Jordan v. Bank, 74 N. Y. 472 ; Bradley v. Angel, 3 N. Y. 475 .

1892Munger v. Bank, 85 N. Y. 580 ; Jordan v. Bank, 74 N. Y. 472 ; Bradley v. Angel, 3 N. Y. 475 .

1888Com’rs of Washington Park v. Bank, 67 N. Y. 568 . — against others than the officers.] Where the court have power to ■enjoin an officer from paying an illegal claim, they have power to enjoin the holder of the claim from transferring it pendente lite.

1875Cardwell v. Hicks, 37 Barb. 458 .

1862It is in that respect like the obligation of an indorser, which is available, notwithstanding the signature of one of the makers is a forgery. ( 22 Barb. 516 .) And knowledge of the holder that such a defense exists, where it is also known to the guarantor, does not deprive him of the right to rely upon the guaranty; because it is'taken, perhaps, for that very reason.