Brush v. Rothschild

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Brush v. Rothschild

176 A.D. 881

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Brush v. Rothschild. Read the opinion of the Court — 186 A.D. 857 →

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 15, 1916·Published

Opinion

We think the judgment should be reversed and a new trial granted. The proofs of the defendant indicate that she had no legal seizin at the time she made the covenant in question. Whether she had an equitable title, and whether a title of that character is sufficient to comply with the covenant, has not been discussed by either party to this appeal. Judgment and order reversed and new trial granted, costs to abide the event. Jenks, P. J., Thomas, Carr, Mills and Rich, JJ., concurred.

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

We think the judgment should be reversed and a new trial granted. The proofs of the defendant indicate that she had no legal seizin at the time she made the covenant in question. Whether she had an equitable title, and whether a title of that character is sufficient to comply with the covenant, has not been discussed by either party to this appeal. Judgment and order reversed and new trial granted, costs to abide the event. Jenks, P. J., Thomas, Carr, Mills and Rich, JJ., concurred.

Brush v. Rothschild, 176 A.D. 881 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1916).

Pincite

176 A.D. 881 (Brush v. Rothschild) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.