Columbia Tile Supply Co. v. Doepper

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Columbia Tile Supply Co. v. Doepper

240 A.D. 726

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

DecidedJune 15, 1933

StatusPublished

This text of 240 A.D. 726 (Columbia Tile Supply Co. v. Doepper) 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

Columbia Tile Supply Co. v. Doepper, 240 A.D. 726 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment modified by striking therefrom the words “ upon payment of Fifteen Hundred ($1500) Dollars to Frank I. Hertling ” and by adding thereto a provision for costs against defendant Frank I. Hertling, and as so modified affirmed, in so far as appealed from, without costs. The conclusion of law is modified by striking therefrom the provision with respect to $1,500 just quoted and by adding a provision for costs against Frank I. Hertling. [727]*727The grantee, Hertling, having been found by the court to have taken the grant with a fraudulent intent, the imposition of the condition was without warrant of law. (Debtor and Creditor Law, §§ 273, 278; Berlenbach v. Bischoff, 231 App. Div. 734.) Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell and Tompkins, JJ., concur; Kapper, J., dissents and votes to affirm.

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

Judgment modified by striking therefrom the words “ upon payment of Fifteen Hundred ($1500) Dollars to Frank I. Hertling ” and by adding thereto a provision for costs against defendant Frank I. Hertling, and as so modified affirmed, in so far as appealed from, without costs. The conclusion of law is modified by striking therefrom the provision with respect to $1,500 just quoted and by adding a provision for costs against Frank I. Hertling. [727]*727The grantee, Hertling, having been found by the court to have taken the grant with a fraudulent intent, the imposition of the condition was without warrant of law. (Debtor and Creditor Law, §§ 273, 278; Berlenbach v. Bischoff, 231 App. Div. 734.) Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell and Tompkins, JJ., concur; Kapper, J., dissents and votes to affirm.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

240 A.D. 726, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/columbia-tile-supply-co-v-doepper-nyappdiv-1933.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack