Gillett v. Depuy

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gillett v. Depuy

63 N.Y.S. 52

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

DecidedMarch 7, 1900

StatusPublished

This text of 63 N.Y.S. 52 (Gillett v. Depuy) 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

Gillett v. Depuy, 63 N.Y.S. 52 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1900).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

In view of the character of proof offered by defendant to show payments upon the mortgages sought to be foreclosed, we think the plaintiff was not fully advised that the question of the existence of chattel mortgages was involved, nor the question of their validity, nor the question of their payment, nor the question of either of these chattel mortgages having been taken in part payment of the real-estate mortgages. In view of the treatment accorded by the county court to these chattel mortgages apparent in the computation, we think the county court should have granted a new trial on the affidavits presented.

Order denying the motion is reversed, and a new trial is granted, with $10 costs and disbursements to appellant.

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

PER CURIAM.

In view of the character of proof offered by defendant to show payments upon the mortgages sought to be foreclosed, we think the plaintiff was not fully advised that the question of the existence of chattel mortgages was involved, nor the question of their validity, nor the question of their payment, nor the question of either of these chattel mortgages having been taken in part payment of the real-estate mortgages. In view of the treatment accorded by the county court to these chattel mortgages apparent in the computation, we think the county court should have granted a new trial on the affidavits presented.

Order denying the motion is reversed, and a new trial is granted, with $10 costs and disbursements to appellant.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

63 N.Y.S. 52, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gillett-v-depuy-nyappdiv-1900.