Duryea v. Liftchild

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Duryea v. Liftchild

160 A.D. 891, 144 N.Y.S. 1113

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

DecidedDecember 15, 1913

StatusPublished

This text of 160 A.D. 891 (Duryea v. Liftchild) 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

Duryea v. Liftchild, 160 A.D. 891, 144 N.Y.S. 1113 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

George H. Liftchild was incompetent to testify that he received the mortgage from his mother, and the evidence shows that he did receive the mortgages from Williams, with directions to record them so that they would be equal liens, and his assignee is affected by such agreement. The appellants’ exceptions to findings of fact Nos. 8 to 16, and conclusions of law Nos. 3, 3 and 4, both inclusive, are sustained, and appellants’ proposed findings 3, 3 and 4 and conclusions of law 1 and 3 are found. The order should be modified so as to provide for the distribution of the surplus pro rata to the holders of the three mortgages, after crediting a payment of $700 on the mortgage of George Liftchild, and as so modified affirmed, without costs. Burr, Thomas, Rich, Stapleton and Putnam, JJ., concurred. Ord'er modified so as to provide for the distribution of the surplus pro rata to the holders of the three mortgages, after crediting a payment of $700 on the mortgage of George Liftchild, and as so modified affirmed, without costs.

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

Per Curiam:

George H. Liftchild was incompetent to testify that he received the mortgage from his mother, and the evidence shows that he did receive the mortgages from Williams, with directions to record them so that they would be equal liens, and his assignee is affected by such agreement. The appellants’ exceptions to findings of fact Nos. 8 to 16, and conclusions of law Nos. 3, 3 and 4, both inclusive, are sustained, and appellants’ proposed findings 3, 3 and 4 and conclusions of law 1 and 3 are found. The order should be modified so as to provide for the distribution of the surplus pro rata to the holders of the three mortgages, after crediting a payment of $700 on the mortgage of George Liftchild, and as so modified affirmed, without costs. Burr, Thomas, Rich, Stapleton and Putnam, JJ., concurred. Ord'er modified so as to provide for the distribution of the surplus pro rata to the holders of the three mortgages, after crediting a payment of $700 on the mortgage of George Liftchild, and as so modified affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

160 A.D. 891, 144 N.Y.S. 1113, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/duryea-v-liftchild-nyappdiv-1913.