Corwith v. Barry

23 N.Y.S. 200, 69 Hun 113, 76 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 113, 53 N.Y. St. Rep. 53
New York Supreme Court·Decided May 8, 1893·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

DYKMAN, J.

This is an appeal from an order of the county court of Kings county, directing a resale of the property described in the complaint. The action is for the foreclosure of a mortgage, and the sale was under the judgment thereon. There was a, misapprehension respecting the adjournment of the sale on the part of the judgment creditor, who was present to protect his judgment. Either the misinformation respecting the adjournment of" the sale was the result of design or misinformation, and in either case it would be inequitable to permit the sale to stand. The order appealed from is just, and should be affirmed, with $10. costs and disbursements. All concur.

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

Corwith v. Barry, 23 N.Y.S. 200, 69 Hun 113, 76 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 113, 53 N.Y. St. Rep. 53 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1893).

23 N.Y.S. 200 (Corwith v. Barry) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Dime Savings Bank v. Thomas
24 Misc. 2d 850 (New York Supreme Court, 1969)
Wright v. Caprarella
205 A.D. 559 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1923)