Rapps v. Gotleib

22 N.Y.S. 52, 67 Hun 115, 74 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 115, 51 N.Y. St. Rep. 195
CourtNew York Supreme Court
DecidedFebruary 13, 1893
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 22 N.Y.S. 52 (Rapps v. Gotleib) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Rapps v. Gotleib, 22 N.Y.S. 52, 67 Hun 115, 74 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 115, 51 N.Y. St. Rep. 195 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1893).

Opinion

BARNARD, P. J.

The plaintiffs, being the owners of certain real estate in Kings county, applied to the defendant Gotleib for a loan thereon for $1,000. The mortgage was a third mortgage on the property, and Gotleib demanded $75 for making the search and examining the property. This was the 25th of May, 1892. On the next day, plaintiffs gave Gotleib their deed, and he drew a mortgage to himself for the $1,000. This was executed the same day, and Gotleib requested the plaintiffs to leave the bond and mortgage with him, without payment. They objected to that, and Gotleib gave them a receipt for the bond and mortgage, and promising to pay $925 “if everything was correct,”or to return the mortgage. It was expressly agreed that the bond and mortgage were to be of no effect without payment. Gotleib put the mortgage on record, and on the 24th of June, 1892, sold the same to the defendant Stern, for $1,000. She was an innocent purchaser, and bought without notice of the fraud committed by Gotleib. There was no delivery of the bond and mortgage to Gotleib. It therefore never had life in Gotleib’s hands. A purchaser of a mortgage takes it subject to all equities, and stands in the place of the assignee. Briggs v. Langford, 107 N. Y. 680, 14 N. E. Rep. 502; Hill v. Hoole, 116 N. Y. 299, 22 N. E. Rep. 547; Trustees of Union College v. Wheeler, 61 N. Y. 88. The evidence as to the good faith of the defendant Stern is not very clear, from a careful examination of the testimony in respect to her purchase. The rule, however, that, if she was a bona fide purchaser, she stands in no better position than her assignor, Gotleib, renders a discussion upon this point unnecessary. The mortgage was never delivered, and Gotleib never had anything to sell. The judgment should therefore be affirmed, with costs.

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

Related

Stokes v. Houghton
16 A.D. 381 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1897)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
22 N.Y.S. 52, 67 Hun 115, 74 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 115, 51 N.Y. St. Rep. 195, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rapps-v-gotleib-nysupct-1893.