Jaffee v. Wistreich

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Jaffee v. Wistreich

146 Misc. 830, 262 N.Y.S. 207, 1933 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1477

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJanuary 28, 1933

StatusPublished

This text of 146 Misc. 830 (Jaffee v. Wistreich) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jaffee v. Wistreich, 146 Misc. 830, 262 N.Y.S. 207, 1933 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1477 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Judgment against appellant Wistreich affirmed, with twenty-five dollars costs. Judgment against appellants Beyer and Schmidt unanimously reversed upon the law, with thirty dollars costs to such appellants, and complaint dismissed as to them, with appropriate costs in the court below.

Under the provisions of section 266 of the Tax Law, in the absence [831]*831of stipulation, appellant Wistreich was liable to pay the mortgage tax. The court below apparently has found that he promised, if he was liable, to reimburse the plaintiffs if the latter would pay. His liability was created by law, and if he desired to avoid such liability he should have exacted an agreement from the other appellants to pay the tax. The plaintiffs can have no recovery against the other appellants, since the law imposed no liability upon them, and they did not assume any either under an agreement with appellant Wistreich or with the plaintiffs.

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

Per Curiam.

Judgment against appellant Wistreich affirmed, with twenty-five dollars costs. Judgment against appellants Beyer and Schmidt unanimously reversed upon the law, with thirty dollars costs to such appellants, and complaint dismissed as to them, with appropriate costs in the court below.

Under the provisions of section 266 of the Tax Law, in the absence [831]*831of stipulation, appellant Wistreich was liable to pay the mortgage tax. The court below apparently has found that he promised, if he was liable, to reimburse the plaintiffs if the latter would pay. His liability was created by law, and if he desired to avoid such liability he should have exacted an agreement from the other appellants to pay the tax. The plaintiffs can have no recovery against the other appellants, since the law imposed no liability upon them, and they did not assume any either under an agreement with appellant Wistreich or with the plaintiffs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

146 Misc. 830, 262 N.Y.S. 207, 1933 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1477, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jaffee-v-wistreich-nyappterm-1933.