Basile v. Lehrenkrauss

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Basile v. Lehrenkrauss

235 A.D. 742

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

DecidedMarch 15, 1932

StatusPublished

This text of 235 A.D. 742 (Basile v. Lehrenkrauss) 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

Basile v. Lehrenkrauss, 235 A.D. 742 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment reversed on the law and the facts, with costs to the appellants, and complaint dismissed, with costs. The trial court found that the assignments of the bonds and mortgages from plaintiff to defendants were executed by plaintiff and delivered, together with the bonds and mortgages, to Robert R. Danzilo for the purpose of delivering the same to the defendants and receiving for the plaintiff the amount due thereon. Danzilo was, therefore, the agent of the plaintiff for the purpose stated, and it was error for the court to refuse to find that Danzilo was the agent of the plaintiff. The delivery to Danzilo of the checks to his order for the amount of the bonds and mortgages was payment to plaintiff. (Potter v. Sager, 228 N. Y. 526.) The refusal of the court to find that Danzilo was the agent of the plaintiff is reversed, and a finding will be made that Danzilo was such agent. Lazansky, P. J., Young, Tompkins and Davis, JJ., concur; Scudder, J., votes for reversal and a new trial. Settle order on notice.

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

Judgment reversed on the law and the facts, with costs to the appellants, and complaint dismissed, with costs. The trial court found that the assignments of the bonds and mortgages from plaintiff to defendants were executed by plaintiff and delivered, together with the bonds and mortgages, to Robert R. Danzilo for the purpose of delivering the same to the defendants and receiving for the plaintiff the amount due thereon. Danzilo was, therefore, the agent of the plaintiff for the purpose stated, and it was error for the court to refuse to find that Danzilo was the agent of the plaintiff. The delivery to Danzilo of the checks to his order for the amount of the bonds and mortgages was payment to plaintiff. (Potter v. Sager, 228 N. Y. 526.) The refusal of the court to find that Danzilo was the agent of the plaintiff is reversed, and a finding will be made that Danzilo was such agent. Lazansky, P. J., Young, Tompkins and Davis, JJ., concur; Scudder, J., votes for reversal and a new trial. Settle order on notice.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

235 A.D. 742, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/basile-v-lehrenkrauss-nyappdiv-1932.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack