Holm v. Wust

New York Supreme Court

Holm v. Wust

11 Abb. Pr. 113

DecidedMarch 15, 1871

StatusPublished

This text of 11 Abb. Pr. 113 (Holm v. Wust) 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

Holm v. Wust, 11 Abb. Pr. 113 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1871).

Pincite

Opinion

By the Court.—J. F. Barnard, P. J.

Under the evidence in this case, I think the plaintiff failed. to make out a cause of action against the defendant. The plaintiff had applied for a loan upon certain of his property to Harriet Cutler. The defendant was her attorney. Searches were to be made by defendant at plaintiff’s expense. Searches so made would belong to Mrs. Cutler. To save the expenses of a portion of this search, the paper in question was delivered by plaintiff to defendant. Ho searches were made as to the premises covered by this paper in question. The loan was made.- Under the circumstances of this case, the disputed abstract was-a part of the security for the loan. In case of a sale of the mortgage or of a foreclosure, it would be necessary that Mrs. Cutler should have it, or that another should be made. [115]*115The plaintiff substituted his abstract in the place of one to be made by defendant, and he must pay his mortgage before he is entitled to its return.

Judgment reversed and a new trial ordered, costs to abide the event.

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

By the Court.—J. F. Barnard, P. J.

Under the evidence in this case, I think the plaintiff failed. to make out a cause of action against the defendant. The plaintiff had applied for a loan upon certain of his property to Harriet Cutler. The defendant was her attorney. Searches were to be made by defendant at plaintiff’s expense. Searches so made would belong to Mrs. Cutler. To save the expenses of a portion of this search, the paper in question was delivered by plaintiff to defendant. Ho searches were made as to the premises covered by this paper in question. The loan was made.- Under the circumstances of this case, the disputed abstract was-a part of the security for the loan. In case of a sale of the mortgage or of a foreclosure, it would be necessary that Mrs. Cutler should have it, or that another should be made. [115]*115The plaintiff substituted his abstract in the place of one to be made by defendant, and he must pay his mortgage before he is entitled to its return.

Judgment reversed and a new trial ordered, costs to abide the event.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

11 Abb. Pr. 113, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/holm-v-wust-nysupct-1871.