Hull v. New York Elevated Railroad

New York Supreme Court

Hull v. New York Elevated Railroad

29 N.Y.S. 113, 60 N.Y. St. Rep. 726

DecidedMay 18, 1894

StatusPublished

This text of 29 N.Y.S. 113 (Hull v. New York Elevated Railroad) 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

Hull v. New York Elevated Railroad, 29 N.Y.S. 113, 60 N.Y. St. Rep. 726 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1894).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The main question involved in this case is a •question of fact,—as to whether the award was justified by the •evidence. We are of opinion that it was, and do not think it neces[114]*114sary to rehearse the evidence, but merely give our conclusion, as derived from the argument and examination of the case. It is, however, claimed that one of the mortgagees was not required by the decree to release the mortgage in respect to the piece of property described in the action which is called “No. 1.” It is urged upon the part of the respondent that such release is not necessary, as the mortgage in question has become merged. We do not think, in view of the condition of this record, that the defendants should be required to depend upon such merger, but that the decree in action No. 1 should be modified by requiring a release from the mortgage as a condition of payment, and, as modified, affirmed, without costs. In action No. 2 no such question exists, and the judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

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

PER CURIAM.

The main question involved in this case is a •question of fact,—as to whether the award was justified by the •evidence. We are of opinion that it was, and do not think it neces[114]*114sary to rehearse the evidence, but merely give our conclusion, as derived from the argument and examination of the case. It is, however, claimed that one of the mortgagees was not required by the decree to release the mortgage in respect to the piece of property described in the action which is called “No. 1.” It is urged upon the part of the respondent that such release is not necessary, as the mortgage in question has become merged. We do not think, in view of the condition of this record, that the defendants should be required to depend upon such merger, but that the decree in action No. 1 should be modified by requiring a release from the mortgage as a condition of payment, and, as modified, affirmed, without costs. In action No. 2 no such question exists, and the judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 N.Y.S. 113, 60 N.Y. St. Rep. 726, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hull-v-new-york-elevated-railroad-nysupct-1894.