Adler v. Atlas Brick Corporation

27 N.E.2d 434, 283 N.Y. 64, 1940 N.Y. LEXIS 939
New York Court of Appeals·Decided April 26, 1940·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

As between the parties, at least in the absence of intervening equities, whether or not a mortgage of real property also covers personal property, is a question of intent and that is a question of fact. In East River Savings Bank v. 671 Prospect Ave. Holding Corp. (280 N. Y. 342) we held that, since a question of fact was presented, summary judgment should not have been granted. Here there has been a trial on the merits and a finding that the parties intended that the mortgages cover personal property.

The order of the Appellate Division affirming the order of the Supreme Court of Columbia county dated May 2, 1938, and entered May 4,1938, should be affirmed, with costs.

Lehman, Ch. J., ■ Loughran, Finch, Rippey, Sears, Lewis and Conway, JJ., concur.

Order affirmed, etc.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Adler v. Atlas Brick Corporation, 27 N.E.2d 434, 283 N.Y. 64, 1940 N.Y. LEXIS 939 (N.Y. 1940).

27 N.E.2d 434 (Adler v. Atlas Brick Corporation) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Bergenfeld v. Midas Collections, Inc.
66 Misc. 2d 665 (New York Supreme Court, 1971)