Larkin v. Brouty

New York Supreme Court

Larkin v. Brouty

15 N.Y.S. 509, 39 N.Y. St. Rep. 879, 1891 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 20

DecidedJuly 2, 1891

StatusPublished

This text of 15 N.Y.S. 509 (Larkin v. Brouty) 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

Larkin v. Brouty, 15 N.Y.S. 509, 39 N.Y. St. Rep. 879, 1891 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 20 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1891).

Pincite

Opinion

Dykman, J.

This is an appeal from an order denying a motion for a resale of the premises sold under the judgment of foreclosure and sale in this action. The property ivas sold in one parcel, although the judgment did not direct the referee to make the sale in that way; and the affidavit satisfies us that the property should have been sold in lots, as the same has been divided. In fact, we gather from the papers that the property would have produced more than double the amount of the plaintiff’s mortgage if the sale had been in lots. After a full examination and careful consideration of all the circumstances surrounding the parties and their transactions, we think there should be a resale of the premises. The order should be reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and the motion should be granted, without costs.

All concur.

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

Dykman, J.

This is an appeal from an order denying a motion for a resale of the premises sold under the judgment of foreclosure and sale in this action. The property ivas sold in one parcel, although the judgment did not direct the referee to make the sale in that way; and the affidavit satisfies us that the property should have been sold in lots, as the same has been divided. In fact, we gather from the papers that the property would have produced more than double the amount of the plaintiff’s mortgage if the sale had been in lots. After a full examination and careful consideration of all the circumstances surrounding the parties and their transactions, we think there should be a resale of the premises. The order should be reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and the motion should be granted, without costs.

All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

15 N.Y.S. 509, 39 N.Y. St. Rep. 879, 1891 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 20, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/larkin-v-brouty-nysupct-1891.