Barile v. Wright

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Barile v. Wright

231 A.D. 788

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedNovember 15, 1930

StatusPublished

This text of 231 A.D. 788 (Barile v. Wright) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Barile v. Wright, 231 A.D. 788 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment and order reversed on the law, with eos+s, and complaint dismissed, with costs, on the ground that the record presents no evidence on which a finding can be based that defendant was acting as plaintiff’s agent in procuring the insurance. We do not pass on the question whether plaintiff may have a partial defense to any future action to foreclose the mortgage given by her. All concur, except Sears, P. J., and Thompson, J., who dissent and vote for affirmance. Present — Sears, P. J., Crouch, Edgcomb, Thompson and Crosby, JJ.

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

Judgment and order reversed on the law, with eos+s, and complaint dismissed, with costs, on the ground that the record presents no evidence on which a finding can be based that defendant was acting as plaintiff’s agent in procuring the insurance. We do not pass on the question whether plaintiff may have a partial defense to any future action to foreclose the mortgage given by her. All concur, except Sears, P. J., and Thompson, J., who dissent and vote for affirmance. Present — Sears, P. J., Crouch, Edgcomb, Thompson and Crosby, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

231 A.D. 788, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barile-v-wright-nyappdiv-1930.