Maidment v. Newbridge Properties, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Maidment v. Newbridge Properties, Inc.

269 A.D. 696, 53 N.Y.S.2d 581, 1945 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3351

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

DecidedMarch 12, 1945

StatusPublished

This text of 269 A.D. 696 (Maidment v. Newbridge Properties, Inc.) 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

Maidment v. Newbridge Properties, Inc., 269 A.D. 696, 53 N.Y.S.2d 581, 1945 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3351 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1945).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the appealing defendants assert that the lien of the mortgage is subject to easements created by restrictive covenants set forth in deeds of conveyance made by the mortgagor after the making and recording of the mortgage. Order of reference and judgment of the County Court, Hassau County, in favor of plaintiff unanimously affirmed, with costs. That part of finding of fact Ho. 3 following the word “ consideration ” is reversed and not made. The lien of the mortgage is entitled to lawful priority, and there is no equitable estoppel operating against its enforcement. The trial court correctly held that proof of notice to the mortgagees of the covenants and restrictions would not be ground for changing his decision; but inasmuch as the tender of proof of notice was rejected, so much of finding of fact Ho. 3 as is above reversed should not have been made. If the facts in Schwab V. Whitmore, Rauber & Vicinus Co., Inc. (245 App. Div. 174) are not distinguishable, that decision will not be followed. Present — Close, P. J., Hagarty, Johnston, Adel and Lewis, JJ.

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

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the appealing defendants assert that the lien of the mortgage is subject to easements created by restrictive covenants set forth in deeds of conveyance made by the mortgagor after the making and recording of the mortgage. Order of reference and judgment of the County Court, Hassau County, in favor of plaintiff unanimously affirmed, with costs. That part of finding of fact Ho. 3 following the word “ consideration ” is reversed and not made. The lien of the mortgage is entitled to lawful priority, and there is no equitable estoppel operating against its enforcement. The trial court correctly held that proof of notice to the mortgagees of the covenants and restrictions would not be ground for changing his decision; but inasmuch as the tender of proof of notice was rejected, so much of finding of fact Ho. 3 as is above reversed should not have been made. If the facts in Schwab V. Whitmore, Rauber & Vicinus Co., Inc. (245 App. Div. 174) are not distinguishable, that decision will not be followed. Present — Close, P. J., Hagarty, Johnston, Adel and Lewis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

269 A.D. 696, 53 N.Y.S.2d 581, 1945 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3351, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maidment-v-newbridge-properties-inc-nyappdiv-1945.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack