Disbrow v. . Disbrow

New York Court of Appeals

Disbrow v. . Disbrow

58 N.E. 1086, 164 N.Y. 564, 1900 N.Y. LEXIS 935

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Disbrow v. . Disbrow. Read the opinion of the Court — 167 N.Y. 606 →

New York Court of Appeals·Decided October 2, 1900·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We do not concur in the strictures passed upon counsel in the opinion at the Appellate Division, but as we cannot say that there was no evidence to support the findings to the effect that the execution and delivery of the deed were not the voluntary acts of the plaintiff, but was brought about by undue influence exercised on the part of the defendant, who stood in a confidential relation towards her, we are constrained to affirm the judgment.

The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

Parker, Oh. J., O’Brien, Bartlett, Vann, Landon, Cullen, and Werner, JJ., concur.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

We do not concur in the strictures passed upon counsel in the opinion at the Appellate Division, but as we cannot say that there was no evidence to support the findings to the effect that the execution and delivery of the deed were not the voluntary acts of the plaintiff, but was brought about by undue influence exercised on the part of the defendant, who stood in a confidential relation towards her, we are constrained to affirm the judgment.

The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

Parker, Oh. J., O’Brien, Bartlett, Vann, Landon, Cullen, and Werner, JJ., concur.

Judgment affirmed.

Disbrow v. . Disbrow, 58 N.E. 1086, 164 N.Y. 564, 1900 N.Y. LEXIS 935 (N.Y. 1900).

Pincite

58 N.E. 1086 (Disbrow v. . Disbrow) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.