Hyperlawhypertext legal databasebeta Kings County Trust Co. v. Giovinco 266 N.Y. 137

← Cases

Kings County Trust Co. v. Giovinco

266 N.Y. 137 Court N.Y. Decision date 1934-12-31 English

Contents

Majority

p. 137
Kings County Trust Company, as Trustee under the Will of Whitman W. Kenyon, Deceased, Appellant, v. Charles Giovinco et al., Defendants, and Arthur A. Wulff, Respondent.
(Argued November 26, 1934;
decided December 31, 1934.)
p. 138
Allen S. Wrenn for appellant.
The facts and circumstances of this case rebut any inference of an agreement to extend the mortgage based upon the mere fact of prepayment of interest. (New York Life Ins. Co. v. Casey, 178 N. Y. 381 .)
Harold M. Kennedy for respondent.
The fact of prepayment was evidence of an extension of the mortgage. (Murray v. Marshall, 94 N. Y. 611 ; Metzger v. Nova Realty Co., 214 N. Y. 26 ; Place v. McIlvain, 38 N. Y. 96 ; Ducker v. Rapp, 67 N. Y. 464 ; Hitchcock v. Frackelton, 116 Mich. 487 ; Warner v. Campbell, 26 Ill. 282 ; New Hampshire Sav. Bank v. Ela, 11 N. H. 335 ; New Hampshire Sav. Bank v. Colcord, 15 N. H. 119 ; Crosby v. Wyatt, 10 N. H. 318 ; People’s Bank v. Pearsons, 30 Vt. 711 ;
p. 139
Batavian Bank v. McDonald, 77 Wis. 486 ; Hollingsworth v. Tomlinson, 108 N. C. 245 ; Scott v. Saffold, 37 Ga. 384 ; First Nat. Bank v. Leavitt, 65 Mo. 562 ; American Nat. Bank v. Love, 62 Mo. App. 378 ; Union Bank v. McClung, 9 Humph. [Tenn.] 98; Germania Life Ins. Co. v. Casey, 98 App. Div. 88 ; 184 N. Y. 554 .)

The payment of interest in advance, in the circumstances as found by the trial court and sustained by the weight of evidence, rebuts the presumption (New York Life Ins. Co. v. Casey, 178 N. Y. 381 ) that such payment indicates an extension of time so as to discharge a surety.

The judgment of the Appellate Division should be reversed and that of the Special Term affirmed, with costs in this court and in the Appellate Division.

Pound, Ch. J., Crane, Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Crouch and Loughran, JJ., concur.

Judgment accordingly.

Cases cited