Martin v. Slifkin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Martin v. Slifkin

249 A.D. 860, 293 N.Y.S. 213, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10028

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

DecidedJanuary 29, 1937

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 249 A.D. 860 (Martin v. Slifkin) 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

Martin v. Slifkin, 249 A.D. 860, 293 N.Y.S. 213, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10028 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover on a bond accompanying a mortgage on real property, where the mortgage has been cut off by the foreclosure of a prior mortgage, judgment entered upon a verdict of a jury in favor of defendants unanimously affirmed, with costs. The defense was usury. The exact amount paid by the obligees was a question of fact to be determined by the jury. This question having been resolved in favor of defendants, we are not disposed to interfere with the verdict. The testimony of the attorney who handled the transaction was properly admitted on the trial, as it was not privileged under section 353 of the Civil Practice Act, for the reason that the parties on both sides consulted this witness for their mutual benefit. (Hurlburt v. Hurlburt, 128 N. Y. 420, 424.) Lazansky, P. J., Carswell, Davis and Adel, JJ., concur; Close, J., not sitting.

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

In an action to recover on a bond accompanying a mortgage on real property, where the mortgage has been cut off by the foreclosure of a prior mortgage, judgment entered upon a verdict of a jury in favor of defendants unanimously affirmed, with costs. The defense was usury. The exact amount paid by the obligees was a question of fact to be determined by the jury. This question having been resolved in favor of defendants, we are not disposed to interfere with the verdict. The testimony of the attorney who handled the transaction was properly admitted on the trial, as it was not privileged under section 353 of the Civil Practice Act, for the reason that the parties on both sides consulted this witness for their mutual benefit. (Hurlburt v. Hurlburt, 128 N. Y. 420, 424.) Lazansky, P. J., Carswell, Davis and Adel, JJ., concur; Close, J., not sitting.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

249 A.D. 860, 293 N.Y.S. 213, 1937 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10028, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martin-v-slifkin-nyappdiv-1937.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack