Saperstein v. . Ullman

New York Court of Appeals

Saperstein v. . Ullman

61 N.E. 553, 168 N.Y. 636, 6 Bedell 636, 1901 N.Y. LEXIS 947

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 18, 1901

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 61 N.E. 553 (Saperstein v. . Ullman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Saperstein v. . Ullman, 61 N.E. 553, 168 N.Y. 636, 6 Bedell 636, 1901 N.Y. LEXIS 947 (N.Y. 1901).

Pincite

Opinions

Per Curiam.

We are of opinion that the result reached by the majority of the Appellate Division was correct, and that the order of that court granting a new trial must be affirmed. The action was at law against the defendant individually and as executor of his wife’s will. The judgment granted at the Special Term was against the defendant, not individually, but as executor. As the action was at law execution on the judgment would run against the goods of his testatrix. It may well be that an action in equity could be maintained to charge the plaintiff’s claim on such property as the deceased bequeathed to the defendant with which to carry on her business. This action is not of that character, and the trial court has not found what property was employed in the business. The modification of the judgment suggested by the minority of the Appellate Division would, therefore, have been unauthorized, and the proper action was that directed by the majority of the court — a new trial.

The order appealed from must be affirmed, and judgment absolute directed for the defendant on the stipulation, with costs.

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

Per Curiam.

We are of opinion that the result reached by the majority of the Appellate Division was correct, and that the order of that court granting a new trial must be affirmed. The action was at law against the defendant individually and as executor of his wife’s will. The judgment granted at the Special Term was against the defendant, not individually, but as executor. As the action was at law execution on the judgment would run against the goods of his testatrix. It may well be that an action in equity could be maintained to charge the plaintiff’s claim on such property as the deceased bequeathed to the defendant with which to carry on her business. This action is not of that character, and the trial court has not found what property was employed in the business. The modification of the judgment suggested by the minority of the Appellate Division would, therefore, have been unauthorized, and the proper action was that directed by the majority of the court — a new trial.

The order appealed from must be affirmed, and judgment absolute directed for the defendant on the stipulation, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

61 N.E. 553, 168 N.Y. 636, 6 Bedell 636, 1901 N.Y. LEXIS 947, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/saperstein-v-ullman-ny-1901.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack