Rosenthal v. Gunn

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Rosenthal v. Gunn

119 N.Y.S. 165

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedNovember 12, 1909

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 119 N.Y.S. 165 (Rosenthal v. Gunn) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Rosenthal v. Gunn, 119 N.Y.S. 165 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1909).

Pincite

Opinion

SEABURY, J.

Plaintiff’s assignors were employed under a written contract “to procure a loan” upon property owned by the defendants. The evidence shows that the plaintiff’s assignors procured an agreement from a third person to make a loan. The loan was not made. Why it was not made was not shown by any competent evidence. It is stated in the brief of counsel that the defendants’ title to this property upon which the loan was to be made was not good. If such was the fact, it should have been proved. Procuring an agreement from a third person to make a loan is not the same thing as procuring a loan. In the absence of any evidence on the subject, we cannot assume that the loan was not made because of the fault of the defendants, or because the defendants did not have a good title to the property.

Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to the appellants to abide the event. All concur.

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

SEABURY, J.

Plaintiff’s assignors were employed under a written contract “to procure a loan” upon property owned by the defendants. The evidence shows that the plaintiff’s assignors procured an agreement from a third person to make a loan. The loan was not made. Why it was not made was not shown by any competent evidence. It is stated in the brief of counsel that the defendants’ title to this property upon which the loan was to be made was not good. If such was the fact, it should have been proved. Procuring an agreement from a third person to make a loan is not the same thing as procuring a loan. In the absence of any evidence on the subject, we cannot assume that the loan was not made because of the fault of the defendants, or because the defendants did not have a good title to the property.

Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to the appellants to abide the event. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

119 N.Y.S. 165, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rosenthal-v-gunn-nyappterm-1909.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack