Meyer v. Mayo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Meyer v. Mayo

193 A.D. 882

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Meyer v. Mayo. Read the opinion of the Court — 196 A.D. 78 →

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 15, 1920·Published

Opinion

The order of the Special Term should have two further conditions, as follows: Defendants should (a) give the undertaking for $500 costs (Code Civ. Proe. §§ 1326, 1352); (b) execute and deposit with the clerk of the county of Kings the conveyance of the premises directed in the interlocutory judgment (Code [883]*883Civ. Proc. § 1330). They, however, are not required to give security against waste. (Midwood Park Co. v. Baker, 142 App. Div. 495.) As so modified the order is affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements to plaintiff. Jenks, P. J., Mills, Putnam, Kelly and Jaycox, JJ., concur.

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

The order of the Special Term should have two further conditions, as follows: Defendants should (a) give the undertaking for $500 costs (Code Civ. Proe. §§ 1326, 1352); (b) execute and deposit with the clerk of the county of Kings the conveyance of the premises directed in the interlocutory judgment (Code [883]*883Civ. Proc. § 1330). They, however, are not required to give security against waste. (Midwood Park Co. v. Baker, 142 App. Div. 495.) As so modified the order is affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements to plaintiff. Jenks, P. J., Mills, Putnam, Kelly and Jaycox, JJ., concur.

Meyer v. Mayo, 193 A.D. 882 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1920).

Pincite

193 A.D. 882 (Meyer v. Mayo) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related