Opinion · Nylaw New York

ARNOLD v. POTTER, HAMILTON BUTLER, INC., 226 App. Div. 868 (1929)

DAN H. ARNOLD, Appellant, v. POTTER, HAMILTON BUTLER, INC., Respondent., 226 A.D. 868 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department. 1929)

Type: Opinion
Court: New York
Jurisdiction: New York
Date: 1929-01-01
Topic: general

ARNOLD v. POTTER, HAMILTON BUTLER, INC., 226 App. Div. 868 (1929) DAN H. ARNOLD, Appellant, v. POTTER, HAMILTON BUTLER, INC., Respondent.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed ARNOLD v. POTTER, HAMILTON BUTLER, INC., 226 App. Div. 868 (1929). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

ARNOLD v. POTTER, HAMILTON BUTLER, INC.,226 App. Div. 868(1929)

DAN H. ARNOLD, Appellant, v. POTTER, HAMILTON BUTLER, INC., Respondent.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department.

June, 1929.

Judgment affirmed. Assuming that the question whether there was a loan to the defendant corporation, rather than an investment by the plaintiff, should have been submitted to the jury, the plaintiff failed to show that the loan was authorized by the defendant.

Present — Dowling, P.J., Merrell, Martin, O'Malley and Proskauer, JJ.