Miller v. Mihm

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Miller v. Mihm

256 A.D. 897, 9 N.Y.S.2d 18, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5293

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

DecidedJanuary 12, 1939

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 256 A.D. 897 (Miller v. Mihm) 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

Miller v. Mihm, 256 A.D. 897, 9 N.Y.S.2d 18, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5293 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

Submitted controversy determined in favor "of the plaintiff, witn costs. Memorandum: In reaching the conclusion that the plaintiff has a marketable title to the premises described in the warranty deed which she has tendered to the defendant, we apply the provisions of chapter 559 of the Laws of 1902. Section 10 of that enactment provides a Statute of Limitations which, when applied to the stipulated facts before us, prevents, after a reasonable period of time, any prior grantee or others interested in the land or a portion thereof, from asserting a right to question the validity of the tax title upon which plaintiff’s title depends. (Dunkum v. Maceck Bldg. Corp., 256 N. Y. 275, 285; Robbins v. Abrew, 275 id. 233, 237.) AH concur. (Submission of a controversy in an action to compel specific performance of a contract to purchase realty.) Present — Sears, P. J., Lewis, Cunningham, Taylor and Dowling, JJ.

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

Submitted controversy determined in favor "of the plaintiff, witn costs. Memorandum: In reaching the conclusion that the plaintiff has a marketable title to the premises described in the warranty deed which she has tendered to the defendant, we apply the provisions of chapter 559 of the Laws of 1902. Section 10 of that enactment provides a Statute of Limitations which, when applied to the stipulated facts before us, prevents, after a reasonable period of time, any prior grantee or others interested in the land or a portion thereof, from asserting a right to question the validity of the tax title upon which plaintiff’s title depends. (Dunkum v. Maceck Bldg. Corp., 256 N. Y. 275, 285; Robbins v. Abrew, 275 id. 233, 237.) AH concur. (Submission of a controversy in an action to compel specific performance of a contract to purchase realty.) Present — Sears, P. J., Lewis, Cunningham, Taylor and Dowling, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

256 A.D. 897, 9 N.Y.S.2d 18, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5293, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miller-v-mihm-nyappdiv-1939.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack