First National Bank of Odessa v. Fazzari

193 N.Y.S.2d 367 (1959)

From our private database of 46,100+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

First National Bank of Odessa v. Fazzari

New York County Court
193 N.Y.S.2d 367 (1959)

Facts

John Wade, Jr., worked for Mike Fazzari (defendant). Wade and Fazzari had a meeting at Fazzari’s house. Though Fazzari could not read or write in English, Fazzari’s wife was able to do so, and she was in the next room during Wade and Fazzari’s meeting. Wade asked Fazzari to sign a paper and represented that the paper was a statement of wages for his income-tax return. Fazzari signed the paper based on Wade’s representation and did not ask his wife for any assistance in reading the paper. In reality, the paper was a promissory note in which Fazzari promised to pay $400 to Wade with interest. Fazzari discovered the true character of the paper he signed and consulted with an attorney, who advised Fazzari to tell all the banks in the area not to accept the note. At trial, the evidence established that Fazzari told a cashier at First National Bank of Odessa (Odessa Bank) (plaintiff) not to pay any money to Wade pursuant to the note because Wade had tricked him into signing the note. A few months later, the note was presented to Odessa Bank by a third party, who Wade indorsed the note over to. The cashier forgot about his conversation with Fazzari regarding the note. Consequently, Odessa Bank accepted the note, paid the $400 by cashier’s check, and forwarded the note to Wade’s bank, upon which the note was drawn for collection. Wade’s bank protested the note and forwarded the note to Odessa Bank. Accordingly, Odessa Bank sued Fazzari and sought a determination that Fazzari was liable for payment of the note. Fazzari argued that Odessa Bank was not a holder in due course because Odessa Bank had notice of problems with the note. Fazzari further argued that even if Odessa Bank was a holder in due course, these circumstances constituted fraud in the factum rendering the note void, which was a real defense.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Argetsinger, Jr., J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 744,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 744,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,100 briefs, keyed to 987 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 744,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,100 briefs - keyed to 987 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership