Cahill v. Hickey

New York Supreme Court

Cahill v. Hickey

12 N.Y. St. Rep. 878

DecidedDecember 13, 1887

StatusPublished

This text of 12 N.Y. St. Rep. 878 (Cahill v. Hickey) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cahill v. Hickey, 12 N.Y. St. Rep. 878 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1887).

Pincite

Opinion

Dykman, J.

This is an appeal from an order of confirmation of the report of a referee respecting the disposition of the surplus money arising upon a sale under the judgment of foreclosure in this action.

William Meldrum hid in the property at the first sale for $1,570 and paid ten per cent thereon, being $157. He failed to complete his purchase and the premises were resold. He now claims the return of this money, less the sum of $40 the deficiency upon the second sale, or in other words the amount for which the premises sold upon the second sale below the first. The referee deducted that amount and also $19.75 for the expenses of the second sale. This last deduction was in pursuance of the terms of sale under which Meldrum bid, and was therefore properly deducted.

Thé remainder of the surplus belonged to Lawrence V. Cortelyou under the mortgages made to him by Patrick Hickey as collateral security, and so the referee decided.

His report was right and so was the order from which this appeal was taken, and the same should be affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

Barnard, P. J., and Pratt, J., concur.

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

Dykman, J.

This is an appeal from an order of confirmation of the report of a referee respecting the disposition of the surplus money arising upon a sale under the judgment of foreclosure in this action.

William Meldrum hid in the property at the first sale for $1,570 and paid ten per cent thereon, being $157. He failed to complete his purchase and the premises were resold. He now claims the return of this money, less the sum of $40 the deficiency upon the second sale, or in other words the amount for which the premises sold upon the second sale below the first. The referee deducted that amount and also $19.75 for the expenses of the second sale. This last deduction was in pursuance of the terms of sale under which Meldrum bid, and was therefore properly deducted.

Thé remainder of the surplus belonged to Lawrence V. Cortelyou under the mortgages made to him by Patrick Hickey as collateral security, and so the referee decided.

His report was right and so was the order from which this appeal was taken, and the same should be affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

Barnard, P. J., and Pratt, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 N.Y. St. Rep. 878, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cahill-v-hickey-nysupct-1887.