Horowitz v. Welt

224 A.D. 37, 229 N.Y.S. 519, 1928 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9922
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 15, 1928·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The purchaser at the foreclosure sale purchased only such right, title and interest as the mortgagee had in the premises. (Central Union Gas Co. v. Browning, 210 N. Y. 10.) The mortgage was made prior to the conditional sale of the alleged chattels and, therefore, was not made upon the faith and credit thereof. The purchaser at foreclosure, therefore, took subject to the conditional sales agreement. (Kohler Co., Inc., v. Brasun, 222 App. Div. 338.) The plaintiff testified that the fixtures in question could be removed without serious damage to the realty. The defendant offered no direct proof in contradiction of this testimony. The plaintiff, therefore, made out a prima facie case, leaving at issue only the amount of damage which should have been allowed in the event that any fixtures to which the plaintiff might be entitled were not delivered to him. Upon a new trial the defendant may be able also to offer proof upon the issue of whether the [38]*38fixtures were so affixed to the realty as to have become a part thereof.

The judgment appealed from should be reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.

Present — Dowling, P. J., Merrell, Finch, McAvoy and O’Malley, JJ.

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

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

Horowitz v. Welt, 224 A.D. 37, 229 N.Y.S. 519, 1928 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9922 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1928).

224 A.D. 37 (Horowitz v. Welt) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

American Trust Co. v. 22 West 25th Street Corp.
33 Misc. 2d 423 (New York Supreme Court, 1962)