Geminder v. Childs

New York Supreme Court

Geminder v. Childs

146 Misc. 565, 263 N.Y.S. 551, 1932 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1304

DecidedJune 7, 1932

StatusPublished

This text of 146 Misc. 565 (Geminder v. Childs) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Geminder v. Childs, 146 Misc. 565, 263 N.Y.S. 551, 1932 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1304 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

Cunningham, J.

Van Dyck, as agent for the plaintiff, had the right to collect the interest upon the mortgage as it became due. He did not have actual authority to collect the principal. Such authority will not be presumed because of his right to collect the interest. Although Van Dyck had the mortgage at the time defendants made the payment of principal to him, still such fact was not known to defendants and, therefore, forms no basis for a finding that he had apparent authority to collect the principal. (Crane v. Gruenewald, 120 N. Y. 274; Wangner v. Grimm, 169 id. 421, 429; Goetzman v. Danitz, 116 Misc. 140.)

Furthermore, on August 4, 1930, the date of the payment of the principal by defendants to Van Dyck, the latter did not have possession of the mortgage with the consent of the plaintiff, as the plaintiff by letter under date of May 5, 1930, demanded that he turn the mortgage over to her.

Judgment in favor of the plaintiff, with costs.

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

Cunningham, J.

Van Dyck, as agent for the plaintiff, had the right to collect the interest upon the mortgage as it became due. He did not have actual authority to collect the principal. Such authority will not be presumed because of his right to collect the interest. Although Van Dyck had the mortgage at the time defendants made the payment of principal to him, still such fact was not known to defendants and, therefore, forms no basis for a finding that he had apparent authority to collect the principal. (Crane v. Gruenewald, 120 N. Y. 274; Wangner v. Grimm, 169 id. 421, 429; Goetzman v. Danitz, 116 Misc. 140.)

Furthermore, on August 4, 1930, the date of the payment of the principal by defendants to Van Dyck, the latter did not have possession of the mortgage with the consent of the plaintiff, as the plaintiff by letter under date of May 5, 1930, demanded that he turn the mortgage over to her.

Judgment in favor of the plaintiff, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

146 Misc. 565, 263 N.Y.S. 551, 1932 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1304, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/geminder-v-childs-nysupct-1932.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack