Potorti v. Caleb Heathcote Trust Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Potorti v. Caleb Heathcote Trust Co.

249 A.D. 648, 291 N.Y.S. 283, 1936 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5385

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

DecidedNovember 23, 1936

StatusPublished

This text of 249 A.D. 648 (Potorti v. Caleb Heathcote Trust Co.) 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

Potorti v. Caleb Heathcote Trust Co., 249 A.D. 648, 291 N.Y.S. 283, 1936 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5385 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action for damages for conversion of a bond and mortgage, order denying defendant’s motion for direction of a verdict and granting plaintiff’s motion to set aside the special verdict of a jury and for a new trial reversed on the law, with costs, plaintiff’s motion denied, motion of the defendant for direction of a verdict in its favor granted, and judgment directed for the defend[649]*649ant, with costs. In our opinion the jury fairly passed upon the only material issues which could possibly have been presented, namely, the question of demand for payment and of the defendant’s good faith. The third question as presented may be objectionable in form, but the court’s charge clarified the issue so as to leave no doubt as to the matter which the jury was to determine. Lazansky, P. J., Young, Hagarty, Adel and Taylor, JJ., concur.

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

In an action for damages for conversion of a bond and mortgage, order denying defendant’s motion for direction of a verdict and granting plaintiff’s motion to set aside the special verdict of a jury and for a new trial reversed on the law, with costs, plaintiff’s motion denied, motion of the defendant for direction of a verdict in its favor granted, and judgment directed for the defend[649]*649ant, with costs. In our opinion the jury fairly passed upon the only material issues which could possibly have been presented, namely, the question of demand for payment and of the defendant’s good faith. The third question as presented may be objectionable in form, but the court’s charge clarified the issue so as to leave no doubt as to the matter which the jury was to determine. Lazansky, P. J., Young, Hagarty, Adel and Taylor, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

249 A.D. 648, 291 N.Y.S. 283, 1936 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5385, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/potorti-v-caleb-heathcote-trust-co-nyappdiv-1936.