Mandel v. Hopkins

160 A.D. 872, 144 N.Y.S. 1072
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 15, 1913
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 160 A.D. 872 (Mandel v. Hopkins) 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
Mandel v. Hopkins, 160 A.D. 872, 144 N.Y.S. 1072 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1913).

Opinion

Per Curiam:

The failure to complete the proceedings to sell the infant’s interest in time to enable the vendors to tender the guardian’s deed on the law day was aloné sufficient justification for appellant’s rescission of the contract. Furthermore, the testimony concerning the simultaneous deeds from John Sprowell to James Sprowell and from James to John, and the absence of conveyance from either, and as well the testimony concerning the right of way reserved in the Bergen deed, was sufficient prima facie to justify the appellant in rejecting the title. The judgment and order should be reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event. Present—Ingraham, P. J., Clarke, Scott, Dowling and Hotchkiss, JJ. Judgment and order reversed, new trial ordered, costs to appellant to abide event. Order to be settled on notice.

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

Related

Mandel v. Hopkins
148 N.Y.S. 1129 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1914)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
160 A.D. 872, 144 N.Y.S. 1072, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mandel-v-hopkins-nyappdiv-1913.