Kline Realty & Improvement Co. v. Argus Realty Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kline Realty & Improvement Co. v. Argus Realty Co.

161 A.D. 939, 145 N.Y.S. 1129

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

DecidedFebruary 15, 1914

StatusPublished

This text of 161 A.D. 939 (Kline Realty & Improvement Co. v. Argus Realty Co.) 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

Kline Realty & Improvement Co. v. Argus Realty Co., 161 A.D. 939, 145 N.Y.S. 1129 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1914).

Pincite

Opinion

— Judgment of foreclosure and sale affirmed, with costs. The learned trial court refused to find that the mortgage had been extended. The alleged six months’ extension claimed to have been arranged when the president of the Argus Realty Company paid the back interest due November 23,1912, was denied on behalf of plaintiff, and was inconsistent with the subsequent negotiations to extend this mortgage for the same six months’ period. The court below, upon conflicting testimony, having refused to find that at the beginning of this suit there was any valid agreement to extend the time of payment of the mortgage, its findings and refusals to find are sustained upon this appeal. Jenks, P. J., Thomas, Rich, Stapleton and Putnam, JJ., concurred.

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

— Judgment of foreclosure and sale affirmed, with costs. The learned trial court refused to find that the mortgage had been extended. The alleged six months’ extension claimed to have been arranged when the president of the Argus Realty Company paid the back interest due November 23,1912, was denied on behalf of plaintiff, and was inconsistent with the subsequent negotiations to extend this mortgage for the same six months’ period. The court below, upon conflicting testimony, having refused to find that at the beginning of this suit there was any valid agreement to extend the time of payment of the mortgage, its findings and refusals to find are sustained upon this appeal. Jenks, P. J., Thomas, Rich, Stapleton and Putnam, JJ., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

161 A.D. 939, 145 N.Y.S. 1129, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kline-realty-improvement-co-v-argus-realty-co-nyappdiv-1914.