Schelling v. Bischoff

Superior Court of New York

Schelling v. Bischoff

13 N.Y.S. 600, 1891 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1585

CourtThe Superior Court of the City of New York and Buffalo

DecidedMarch 2, 1891

StatusPublished

This text of 13 N.Y.S. 600 (Schelling v. Bischoff) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering The Superior Court of the City of New York and Buffalo primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Schelling v. Bischoff, 13 N.Y.S. 600, 1891 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1585 (superctny 1891).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The action, as it was tried, involved the canceling a bill of sale for fraud and false representation. The learned judge below in his findings of fact held that the bill of sale was obtained by means of fraudulent representations specified in the findings. The testimony of the plaintiff, however, was that the representations in the findings were not made before the bill of sale was delivered, but were made afterwards, when, as was alleged, the defendants procured from the plaintiff an offer to allow judgment to be taken against them in an action. There were other circumstances of fraud found by the court, which it may be suggested would suffice of themselves to require the canceling of the bill of sale; but the findings show that the judgment was placed rather upon the fraudulent representations than upon the other circumstances of fraud. Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to abide the event. All concur.

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

Per Curiam.

The action, as it was tried, involved the canceling a bill of sale for fraud and false representation. The learned judge below in his findings of fact held that the bill of sale was obtained by means of fraudulent representations specified in the findings. The testimony of the plaintiff, however, was that the representations in the findings were not made before the bill of sale was delivered, but were made afterwards, when, as was alleged, the defendants procured from the plaintiff an offer to allow judgment to be taken against them in an action. There were other circumstances of fraud found by the court, which it may be suggested would suffice of themselves to require the canceling of the bill of sale; but the findings show that the judgment was placed rather upon the fraudulent representations than upon the other circumstances of fraud. Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to abide the event. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

13 N.Y.S. 600, 1891 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1585, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schelling-v-bischoff-superctny-1891.