Sheehy v. Keane

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sheehy v. Keane

227 A.D. 635

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

DecidedJune 15, 1929

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 227 A.D. 635 (Sheehy v. Keane) 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

Sheehy v. Keane, 227 A.D. 635 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1929).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment reversed upon the law, with costs, complaint dismissed, and judgment directed for defendants Kane canceling and discharging the bond and mortgage, with costs. The finding that there is no proof that the making and delivery of the mortgage was without consideration is against the weight of the evidence. While the record discloses that the testatrix intended to bequeath to her brother and sister $2,000 each, the method adopted by her failed of its purpose, because it was a voluntary and unenforcible promise of an executory gift. (Holmes v. Roper, 141 N. Y. 64; Matter of James, 146 id. 78; Welch, v. Graham, 124 N. Y. Supp. 945; affd., 148 App. Div. 900; affd., 210 N. Y. 637; Dougherty v. Salt, 227 id. 200, 202.) Lazansky, P. J., Rich, Hagarty, Carswell and Seudder, JJ., concur.

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

Judgment reversed upon the law, with costs, complaint dismissed, and judgment directed for defendants Kane canceling and discharging the bond and mortgage, with costs. The finding that there is no proof that the making and delivery of the mortgage was without consideration is against the weight of the evidence. While the record discloses that the testatrix intended to bequeath to her brother and sister $2,000 each, the method adopted by her failed of its purpose, because it was a voluntary and unenforcible promise of an executory gift. (Holmes v. Roper, 141 N. Y. 64; Matter of James, 146 id. 78; Welch, v. Graham, 124 N. Y. Supp. 945; affd., 148 App. Div. 900; affd., 210 N. Y. 637; Dougherty v. Salt, 227 id. 200, 202.) Lazansky, P. J., Rich, Hagarty, Carswell and Seudder, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

227 A.D. 635, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sheehy-v-keane-nyappdiv-1929.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack