Lahey v. Kortright

Superior Court of New York

Lahey v. Kortright

11 N.Y.S. 47, 1890 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 594

CourtThe Superior Court of the City of New York and Buffalo

DecidedJune 27, 1890

StatusPublished

This text of 11 N.Y.S. 47 (Lahey v. Kortright) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering The Superior Court of the City of New York and Buffalo primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lahey v. Kortright, 11 N.Y.S. 47, 1890 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 594 (superctny 1890).

Pincite

Opinion

Truax, J.

It is unnecessary for us to discuss the points raised by appellant on the appeal from the judgment, as they were determined against appellant on a former appeal. 4 N. Y. Supp. 626. It was adjudged by the trial court that plaintiff should specifically perform his contract to take title to, and pay the sum of $36,300 for, two certain pieces of property, which pieces of property it was alleged in one of the affidavits used on the motion for an extra allowance were worth said sum. The trial judge granted an allowance of $800. We are of the opinion that property of the value of $36,300 was the “subject-matter involved,”' (Code Civil Proc. § 3253,) and as the amount allowed was less than 5 per cent, of this amount, and as there had been two trials and one appeal to the general term, we cannot say that the trial judge erred in-granting the allowance. Judgment and order appealed from affirmed, with costs.

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

Truax, J.

It is unnecessary for us to discuss the points raised by appellant on the appeal from the judgment, as they were determined against appellant on a former appeal. 4 N. Y. Supp. 626. It was adjudged by the trial court that plaintiff should specifically perform his contract to take title to, and pay the sum of $36,300 for, two certain pieces of property, which pieces of property it was alleged in one of the affidavits used on the motion for an extra allowance were worth said sum. The trial judge granted an allowance of $800. We are of the opinion that property of the value of $36,300 was the “subject-matter involved,”' (Code Civil Proc. § 3253,) and as the amount allowed was less than 5 per cent, of this amount, and as there had been two trials and one appeal to the general term, we cannot say that the trial judge erred in-granting the allowance. Judgment and order appealed from affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

11 N.Y.S. 47, 1890 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 594, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lahey-v-kortright-superctny-1890.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack