Crystal v. Aerodrome Park Amusement Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Crystal v. Aerodrome Park Amusement Co.

180 A.D. 902

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

DecidedOctober 15, 1917

StatusPublished

This text of 180 A.D. 902 (Crystal v. Aerodrome Park Amusement Co.) 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

Crystal v. Aerodrome Park Amusement Co., 180 A.D. 902 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment dismissing complaint and granting relief on the counterclaim affirmed, with costs. The point first made on this appeal, that the trial should not be continued by the trial justice out of Queens county, being a suit to foreclose on property in that county, was not raised below, but a different objection was presented, that the October Special Term had expired during the adjournment of the trial, which was properly overruled. The finding of an individual indebtedness to the testatrix by her son Arthur E. Silverman is amply sustained. And the circumstance that he also furnished a mortgage did not prevent the operation and effect of the testatrix’s testamentary purpose to discharge and extinguish such indebtedness of her son. Jenks, P. J., Stapleton, Rich, Putnam and Blackmar, JJ., concurred.

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

Judgment dismissing complaint and granting relief on the counterclaim affirmed, with costs. The point first made on this appeal, that the trial should not be continued by the trial justice out of Queens county, being a suit to foreclose on property in that county, was not raised below, but a different objection was presented, that the October Special Term had expired during the adjournment of the trial, which was properly overruled. The finding of an individual indebtedness to the testatrix by her son Arthur E. Silverman is amply sustained. And the circumstance that he also furnished a mortgage did not prevent the operation and effect of the testatrix’s testamentary purpose to discharge and extinguish such indebtedness of her son. Jenks, P. J., Stapleton, Rich, Putnam and Blackmar, JJ., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

180 A.D. 902, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crystal-v-aerodrome-park-amusement-co-nyappdiv-1917.