Comfi Homes Corp. v. Goldsmith

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Comfi Homes Corp. v. Goldsmith

256 A.D. 1073, 11 N.Y.S.2d 568, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6189

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

DecidedApril 3, 1939

StatusPublished

This text of 256 A.D. 1073 (Comfi Homes Corp. v. Goldsmith) 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

Comfi Homes Corp. v. Goldsmith, 256 A.D. 1073, 11 N.Y.S.2d 568, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6189 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

Submission of a controversy on an agreed statement of facts. Plaintiff and defendant are respectively seller and purchaser under a contract for the sale of a certain parcel of real property. The defendant purchaser claims that plaintiff’s title is unmarketable because of the effect of a deed dated November 5, 1868, and recorded June 1, 1869, from Phoebe and Michael McGee to Rose Dunn which contained a reference to an unrecorded deed made by plaintiff’s predecessor in title on October 6, 1868, and because of a mortgage executed by Rose Dunn to Patrick MeTeague dated March 26, 1873, and recorded April 3, 1873. These instruments had no effect upon the validity of plaintiff’s title due to the Recording Acts and the effect thereof upon plaintiff’s preeedessor in title. (Todd v. Eighmie, 4 App. Div. 9; People’s Trust Co. v. Tonkonogy, 144 id. 333; Buffalo Acad, of Sacred Heart v. Boehm Bros., 267 N. Y. 242.) It is unnecessary to pass upon the effect of the judgment in the partition action entered September 21, 1937, on the title to this property. Judgment unanimously directed for plaintiff, with costs. Present — Lazansky, P. J., Carswell, 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 on an agreed statement of facts. Plaintiff and defendant are respectively seller and purchaser under a contract for the sale of a certain parcel of real property. The defendant purchaser claims that plaintiff’s title is unmarketable because of the effect of a deed dated November 5, 1868, and recorded June 1, 1869, from Phoebe and Michael McGee to Rose Dunn which contained a reference to an unrecorded deed made by plaintiff’s predecessor in title on October 6, 1868, and because of a mortgage executed by Rose Dunn to Patrick MeTeague dated March 26, 1873, and recorded April 3, 1873. These instruments had no effect upon the validity of plaintiff’s title due to the Recording Acts and the effect thereof upon plaintiff’s preeedessor in title. (Todd v. Eighmie, 4 App. Div. 9; People’s Trust Co. v. Tonkonogy, 144 id. 333; Buffalo Acad, of Sacred Heart v. Boehm Bros., 267 N. Y. 242.) It is unnecessary to pass upon the effect of the judgment in the partition action entered September 21, 1937, on the title to this property. Judgment unanimously directed for plaintiff, with costs. Present — Lazansky, P. J., Carswell, Adel, Taylor and Close, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

256 A.D. 1073, 11 N.Y.S.2d 568, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6189, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/comfi-homes-corp-v-goldsmith-nyappdiv-1939.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack