Johnson v. Lawson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Johnson v. Lawson

1 A.D.2d 762, 147 N.Y.S.2d 261, 1955 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3624

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedDecember 30, 1955

StatusPublished

This text of 1 A.D.2d 762 (Johnson v. Lawson) 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

Johnson v. Lawson, 1 A.D.2d 762, 147 N.Y.S.2d 261, 1955 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3624 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1955).

Pincite

Opinion

Case held, decision reserved and matter remitted to Hon. Lee L. Ottaway to make findings of fact. Memorandum: The trial court’s memorandum opinion contains a finding that the respondents were not given “ formal ” notice of the ejectment action and that no demand was made upon them to defend the same. Formal notice of the commencement of the action and express notice to defend are not essential to the maintenance of this action, (Browning v. [763]*763Stillwell, 42 Misc. 346, affd. 93 App. Div. 613, affd. 182 N. Y. 538; Prescott v. Le Conte, 83 App. Div. 482.) As to whether respondents had informal notice and knowledge of the suit, there is no finding, the memorandum merely stating that the evidence of any notice is disputed and that the nature of such notice “ even if given ” is indefinite. In the absence of a definite finding of notice or lack of notice to the respondents, we are unable to review the judgment. All concur. (Appeal from a judgment of Chautauqua Trial Term dismissing the complaint in an action for damages for an alleged breach of warranty of title to realty.) Present — McCurn,. P. J., Vaughan, Kimball, Wheeler and Van Duser, JJ.

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

Case held, decision reserved and matter remitted to Hon. Lee L. Ottaway to make findings of fact. Memorandum: The trial court’s memorandum opinion contains a finding that the respondents were not given “ formal ” notice of the ejectment action and that no demand was made upon them to defend the same. Formal notice of the commencement of the action and express notice to defend are not essential to the maintenance of this action, (Browning v. [763]*763Stillwell, 42 Misc. 346, affd. 93 App. Div. 613, affd. 182 N. Y. 538; Prescott v. Le Conte, 83 App. Div. 482.) As to whether respondents had informal notice and knowledge of the suit, there is no finding, the memorandum merely stating that the evidence of any notice is disputed and that the nature of such notice “ even if given ” is indefinite. In the absence of a definite finding of notice or lack of notice to the respondents, we are unable to review the judgment. All concur. (Appeal from a judgment of Chautauqua Trial Term dismissing the complaint in an action for damages for an alleged breach of warranty of title to realty.) Present — McCurn,. P. J., Vaughan, Kimball, Wheeler and Van Duser, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 A.D.2d 762, 147 N.Y.S.2d 261, 1955 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3624, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnson-v-lawson-nyappdiv-1955.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack