Brown v. Brown

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Brown v. Brown

275 A.D.2d 1068

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

DecidedOctober 6, 1949

StatusPublished

This text of 275 A.D.2d 1068 (Brown v. Brown) 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

Brown v. Brown, 275 A.D.2d 1068 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1949).

Pincite

Opinion

Orders affirmed, without costs. Certain findings of fact and conclusions of law disapproved and reversed. Memorandum: In respect to the question of the validity of the pro-. ceedings for the sale of plaintiff’s land, we are in accord with the views of -the learned Trial Justice, as expressed-in his written opinion, to the effect that the proceedings were wholly void: (See Matter of Valentine, 72 N. Y. 184; Hegeman v. Stearns Realty Co., 117 App. Div. 754, affd. 192 N. Y. 557, and Ellwood v. Northrup, 106 N. Y. 172.) We think, however, that the provisions of the judgment canceling the mortgage given by the plaintiff to Cora I. Brown in 1912 should be stricken out as the mortgage was not shown to be void for lack of consideration nor was its execution and delivery shown not to be; the voluntary free act-of plaintiff. All concur. (The judgment is for plaintiff in-an action to cancel conveyance of realty.): Present — Taylor, P. J., McCurn, Love, Kimball' and Piper, JJ. " -

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

Orders affirmed, without costs. Certain findings of fact and conclusions of law disapproved and reversed. Memorandum: In respect to the question of the validity of the pro-. ceedings for the sale of plaintiff’s land, we are in accord with the views of -the learned Trial Justice, as expressed-in his written opinion, to the effect that the proceedings were wholly void: (See Matter of Valentine, 72 N. Y. 184; Hegeman v. Stearns Realty Co., 117 App. Div. 754, affd. 192 N. Y. 557, and Ellwood v. Northrup, 106 N. Y. 172.) We think, however, that the provisions of the judgment canceling the mortgage given by the plaintiff to Cora I. Brown in 1912 should be stricken out as the mortgage was not shown to be void for lack of consideration nor was its execution and delivery shown not to be; the voluntary free act-of plaintiff. All concur. (The judgment is for plaintiff in-an action to cancel conveyance of realty.): Present — Taylor, P. J., McCurn, Love, Kimball' and Piper, JJ. " -

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

275 A.D.2d 1068, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brown-v-brown-nyappdiv-1949.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack