Goff v. Lewis

251 A.D. 919, 297 N.Y.S. 659, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8242
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJuly 2, 1937
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 251 A.D. 919 (Goff v. Lewis) 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
Goff v. Lewis, 251 A.D. 919, 297 N.Y.S. 659, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8242 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1937).

Opinion

These actions involve the foreclosure of two mortgages on real property located in the village of Canastota, N. Y. In May, 1922, one Torrey, who owned the property, gave a purchase-money mortgage thereon to one Weaver for the sum of $14,000. This mortgage was subsequently assigned to the plaintiff Crisp. Subsequently the property was transferred to the defendant Lewis. During Lewis’ ownership she gave a mortgage to plaintiff Goff in the sum of $2,500. She also gave Goff a chattel mortgage as collateral security for the payment of the real estate mortgage [920]*920which chattel mortgage covers personal property used in the operation of the premises for hotel purposes. There is unpaid on the Crisp mortgage $10,000 of the principal indebtedness with interest from June 6, 1936. There is unpaid on the Goff mortgage $1,560, with interest from September 6, 1936. Both actions were tried together in the Madison County Court. In both actions the only relief asked for was the foreclosure of the mortgages. It is the contention of the plaintiff Goff that Mrs. Crisp became the record owner of the premises and that her mortgage merged and also that he is entitled to recover damages for the conversion of the personal property covered by the chattel mortgage. His action was not in conversion but one in foreclosure. There is no proof in the record that Crisp ever took the record title to this property and the County Court held that there was no merger. If plaintiff has a claim for the conversion of personal property he may maintain such an action against the responsible parties. The evidence sustains the findings. Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. Present — Hill, P. J., Rhodes, Crapser, Bliss and Heffernan, JJ.

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

Related

Jemzura v. Jemzura
330 N.E.2d 414 (New York Court of Appeals, 1975)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
251 A.D. 919, 297 N.Y.S. 659, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8242, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goff-v-lewis-nyappdiv-1937.