Bullard v. Manufacturers Trust Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bullard v. Manufacturers Trust Co.

263 A.D. 992, 33 N.Y.S.2d 287, 1942 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7797

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

DecidedMarch 2, 1942

StatusPublished

This text of 263 A.D. 992 (Bullard v. Manufacturers Trust Co.) 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

Bullard v. Manufacturers Trust Co., 263 A.D. 992, 33 N.Y.S.2d 287, 1942 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7797 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1942).

Pincite

Opinion

Submission of a controversy upon an agreed statement of facts pursuant to section 546 of the Civil Practice Act. The issue presented is whether under the terms of a certain agreement extending a mortgage on the plaintiffs’ property interest is payable at five per cent or six per cent during the period of extension. Judgment is unanimously directed for the plaintiffs, without costs. We find that the reduction of the interest from six per cent to five per cent during the period of extension was conditioned upon the payment of the installments on account of the principal and the payment of the interest quarterly at the reduced rate, and not upon an agreement to pay the balance due on the principal at the expiration of the period of extension. Hammond v. Lawrence Investing Co., Inc. (262 App. Div. 900) is distinguishable upon the explicit language used in that case. Brighton Operating Corp. v. Morrison (262 App. Div. 895) and Royal Court Realty Co., Inc., v. Thomas (259 id. 313) are not in point. There the question involved was the interest rate after the extension agreement had expired. Present — Hagarty, Johnston, Adel, Taylor and Close, JJ.

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

Submission of a controversy upon an agreed statement of facts pursuant to section 546 of the Civil Practice Act. The issue presented is whether under the terms of a certain agreement extending a mortgage on the plaintiffs’ property interest is payable at five per cent or six per cent during the period of extension. Judgment is unanimously directed for the plaintiffs, without costs. We find that the reduction of the interest from six per cent to five per cent during the period of extension was conditioned upon the payment of the installments on account of the principal and the payment of the interest quarterly at the reduced rate, and not upon an agreement to pay the balance due on the principal at the expiration of the period of extension. Hammond v. Lawrence Investing Co., Inc. (262 App. Div. 900) is distinguishable upon the explicit language used in that case. Brighton Operating Corp. v. Morrison (262 App. Div. 895) and Royal Court Realty Co., Inc., v. Thomas (259 id. 313) are not in point. There the question involved was the interest rate after the extension agreement had expired. Present — Hagarty, Johnston, Adel, Taylor and Close, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

263 A.D. 992, 33 N.Y.S.2d 287, 1942 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7797, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bullard-v-manufacturers-trust-co-nyappdiv-1942.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack