Foley v. Fitzgerald

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Foley v. Fitzgerald

162 A.D. 932, 147 N.Y.S. 1112

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

DecidedApril 15, 1914

StatusPublished

This text of 162 A.D. 932 (Foley v. Fitzgerald) 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

Foley v. Fitzgerald, 162 A.D. 932, 147 N.Y.S. 1112 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment modified by striking out the provisions for the partition and sale of the Hinth street property, and by directing that the plaintiffs’ costs awarded in the judgment be paid out of the proceeds of the sale of the lands described in the first cause of action, and as so modified the judgment is affirmed, with costs in this court and the trial court to the appellants against the plaintiffs. Held, that the evidence is too unsatisfactory to establish that the appellant Mary Fitzgerald held the title to the Hinth street property as trustee for her mother or that her mother had any interest therein; and the findings of fact to that effect contained in the findings numbered 6, 8 [933]*933and 9 are, together with the whole of the 10th, 11th and 13th findings, hereby disapproved and stricken out. All concurred.

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

Judgment modified by striking out the provisions for the partition and sale of the Hinth street property, and by directing that the plaintiffs’ costs awarded in the judgment be paid out of the proceeds of the sale of the lands described in the first cause of action, and as so modified the judgment is affirmed, with costs in this court and the trial court to the appellants against the plaintiffs. Held, that the evidence is too unsatisfactory to establish that the appellant Mary Fitzgerald held the title to the Hinth street property as trustee for her mother or that her mother had any interest therein; and the findings of fact to that effect contained in the findings numbered 6, 8 [933]*933and 9 are, together with the whole of the 10th, 11th and 13th findings, hereby disapproved and stricken out. All concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

162 A.D. 932, 147 N.Y.S. 1112, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/foley-v-fitzgerald-nyappdiv-1914.