Mahland v. Bradley

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mahland v. Bradley

282 A.D. 877, 124 N.Y.S.2d 488, 1953 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5304

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

DecidedOctober 5, 1953

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 282 A.D. 877 (Mahland v. Bradley) 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

Mahland v. Bradley, 282 A.D. 877, 124 N.Y.S.2d 488, 1953 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5304 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1953).

Pincite

Opinion

Plaintiffs appeal from a judgment dismissing their complaint in an action to quiet title, wherein it was alleged that the respondent executed and delivered to George H. Mahland, deceased, a deed to certain premises in which the name of the grantee was omitted and in which the deceased was authorized to insert his own or some other person’s name. Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. Appellants failed to establish any agreement or circumstances from which it could be inferred that the respondent authorized deceased to insert his name in the deed. The principle of implied authority to fill blanks in an instrument does not apply to a deed. (Hulburt v. Walker, 258 N. Y. 8; Ghauncey v. Arnold, 24 N. Y. 330, 337.) There was no error in the admission of the record in the summary proceedings in which the deceased made the petition stating he was the agent of the respondent. The deceased and the respondent had consulted the attorney who testified, on a question of mutual interest. (Cf. Wallace v. Wallace, 216 N. Y. 28, 35, and cases there cited.) Present — Nolan, P. J., Wenzel, MaeCrate, Schmidt and Beldoek,- JJ.

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

Plaintiffs appeal from a judgment dismissing their complaint in an action to quiet title, wherein it was alleged that the respondent executed and delivered to George H. Mahland, deceased, a deed to certain premises in which the name of the grantee was omitted and in which the deceased was authorized to insert his own or some other person’s name. Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. Appellants failed to establish any agreement or circumstances from which it could be inferred that the respondent authorized deceased to insert his name in the deed. The principle of implied authority to fill blanks in an instrument does not apply to a deed. (Hulburt v. Walker, 258 N. Y. 8; Ghauncey v. Arnold, 24 N. Y. 330, 337.) There was no error in the admission of the record in the summary proceedings in which the deceased made the petition stating he was the agent of the respondent. The deceased and the respondent had consulted the attorney who testified, on a question of mutual interest. (Cf. Wallace v. Wallace, 216 N. Y. 28, 35, and cases there cited.) Present — Nolan, P. J., Wenzel, MaeCrate, Schmidt and Beldoek,- JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

282 A.D. 877, 124 N.Y.S.2d 488, 1953 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5304, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mahland-v-bradley-nyappdiv-1953.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack