Putnam v. Jenkins

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Putnam v. Jenkins

239 A.D. 797

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

DecidedApril 15, 1933

StatusPublished

This text of 239 A.D. 797 (Putnam v. Jenkins) 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

Putnam v. Jenkins, 239 A.D. 797 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment reversed on the law and the facts, with costs, and judgment directed for the plaintiff for the relief demanded [798]*798in the complaint, with costs. In our opinion the finding of the learned referee that the mortgage in question was executed and delivered upon condition that the Lafayette Trust Company should remain open is against the weight of the evidence. To the contrary, the evidence shows that the said mortgage was delivered without condition. We are also of opinion that there was ample consideration to support the mortgage. Findings of fact and conclusions of, law inconsistent with this decision are reversed and new findings will be made in support thereof. Lazansky, P. J., Young, Hagarty, Tompkins 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 reversed on the law and the facts, with costs, and judgment directed for the plaintiff for the relief demanded [798]*798in the complaint, with costs. In our opinion the finding of the learned referee that the mortgage in question was executed and delivered upon condition that the Lafayette Trust Company should remain open is against the weight of the evidence. To the contrary, the evidence shows that the said mortgage was delivered without condition. We are also of opinion that there was ample consideration to support the mortgage. Findings of fact and conclusions of, law inconsistent with this decision are reversed and new findings will be made in support thereof. Lazansky, P. J., Young, Hagarty, Tompkins and Davis, JJ., concur. Settle order on notice.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

239 A.D. 797, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/putnam-v-jenkins-nyappdiv-1933.