Monticello Lumber Co. v. Glick

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Monticello Lumber Co. v. Glick

236 A.D. 753

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

DecidedJuly 15, 1932

StatusPublished

This text of 236 A.D. 753 (Monticello Lumber Co. v. Glick) 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

Monticello Lumber Co. v. Glick, 236 A.D. 753 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

Order reversed on the law and facts, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion granted, with ten dollars costs. The defendant’s mortgage is not usurious. (Jenkins v. Moyse, 254 N. Y. 319.) If plaintiff is entitled to any relief it is to be had through an action at law to recover damages for fraud. All concur, except Rhodes, J., who dissents and votes to affirm on the ground that plaintiff is entitled to equitable relief because of the alleged misrepresentations. McNamee, J., not voting.

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

Order reversed on the law and facts, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion granted, with ten dollars costs. The defendant’s mortgage is not usurious. (Jenkins v. Moyse, 254 N. Y. 319.) If plaintiff is entitled to any relief it is to be had through an action at law to recover damages for fraud. All concur, except Rhodes, J., who dissents and votes to affirm on the ground that plaintiff is entitled to equitable relief because of the alleged misrepresentations. McNamee, J., not voting.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

236 A.D. 753, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/monticello-lumber-co-v-glick-nyappdiv-1932.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack