Murphy v. Luverne Realty Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Murphy v. Luverne Realty Corp.

235 A.D. 874

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

DecidedMay 15, 1932

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 235 A.D. 874 (Murphy v. Luverne Realty Corp.) 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

Murphy v. Luverne Realty Corp., 235 A.D. 874 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, in so far as appealed from, reversed on the law and the facts and a new trial granted, costs to abide the event. The burden was upon the plaintiffs to allege and prove that the Title Guarantee and Trust Company was a purchaser for value without notice of Cohen’s reservation of title, so far as concerns the chattels severable without material injury to the freehold. This requires not only pleading and proof that the conditional sales agreement had not been filed on January 14, 1927, the day the title company made its advance under the mortgage, but also that it did not have actual notice of such reservation of title. (Boriskin v. Toll Realty & Const. Co., Inc., 225 App. Div. 695; Hobart Holding Co., Inc., v. Fortwell Realty Corporation, 232 id. 689.) Findings and conclusions inconsistent herewith are reversed. Lazansky, P. J., Kapper, Hagarty, Carswell and Davis, JJ., concur. Settle order on notice.

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

Judgment, in so far as appealed from, reversed on the law and the facts and a new trial granted, costs to abide the event. The burden was upon the plaintiffs to allege and prove that the Title Guarantee and Trust Company was a purchaser for value without notice of Cohen’s reservation of title, so far as concerns the chattels severable without material injury to the freehold. This requires not only pleading and proof that the conditional sales agreement had not been filed on January 14, 1927, the day the title company made its advance under the mortgage, but also that it did not have actual notice of such reservation of title. (Boriskin v. Toll Realty & Const. Co., Inc., 225 App. Div. 695; Hobart Holding Co., Inc., v. Fortwell Realty Corporation, 232 id. 689.) Findings and conclusions inconsistent herewith are reversed. Lazansky, P. J., Kapper, Hagarty, Carswell and Davis, JJ., concur. Settle order on notice.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

235 A.D. 874, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/murphy-v-luverne-realty-corp-nyappdiv-1932.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack