Buongierno v. Schiller

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Buongierno v. Schiller

112 A.D. 916, 98 N.Y.S. 464

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

DecidedApril 15, 1906

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 112 A.D. 916 (Buongierno v. Schiller) 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

Buongierno v. Schiller, 112 A.D. 916, 98 N.Y.S. 464 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1906).

Pincite

Opinion

Hirschberg, P. J.:

The judgment declares that a certain deed of real estate executed by the defendant George Schiller to the appellant, Theresa Schiller, is null and void and should he canceled of record. This -judgment is. founded upon a decision that the deed was made by the grantor for the purpose of hindering and delaying and defrauding a creditor, namely, the plaintiff’s decedent. The grantee alone appeals. There js no finding that the deed was accepted hy the grantee with a fraudulent intent, of that the grantee knew, or shared^ in the fraudulent intent of the grantor. While there is some slight evidence in the record on which such a finding might possibly he based, we think it best, under the circumstances that a new trial should be granted. (See Wadleigh 'v. Wadleigh, 111 App. Div. 367.) Woodward,, Jenks and Rich, JJ., concurred.' Judgment reversed and new trial granted,'costs to abide.the final award of costs! .

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

Hirschberg, P. J.:

The judgment declares that a certain deed of real estate executed by the defendant George Schiller to the appellant, Theresa Schiller, is null and void and should he canceled of record. This -judgment is. founded upon a decision that the deed was made by the grantor for the purpose of hindering and delaying and defrauding a creditor, namely, the plaintiff’s decedent. The grantee alone appeals. There js no finding that the deed was accepted hy the grantee with a fraudulent intent, of that the grantee knew, or shared^ in the fraudulent intent of the grantor. While there is some slight evidence in the record on which such a finding might possibly he based, we think it best, under the circumstances that a new trial should be granted. (See Wadleigh 'v. Wadleigh, 111 App. Div. 367.) Woodward,, Jenks and Rich, JJ., concurred.' Judgment reversed and new trial granted,'costs to abide.the final award of costs! .

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

112 A.D. 916, 98 N.Y.S. 464, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/buongierno-v-schiller-nyappdiv-1906.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack