Smith v. Van Antwerp

New York Court of Appeals

Smith v. Van Antwerp

6 N.Y. St. Rep. 863

New York Court of Appeals·Decided March 2, 1887·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The evidence which in general language was given on the trial, supported the judgment from which the appeal has been taken. If the plaintiff desired more specific or further information as to the incumbrances and loans upon the property, it was his duty to prosecute the inquiry. Having failed to do so, he cannot, because of that failure, object to the propriety of the judgment.

The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

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

Per Curiam.

The evidence which in general language was given on the trial, supported the judgment from which the appeal has been taken. If the plaintiff desired more specific or further information as to the incumbrances and loans upon the property, it was his duty to prosecute the inquiry. Having failed to do so, he cannot, because of that failure, object to the propriety of the judgment.

The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

Smith v. Van Antwerp, 6 N.Y. St. Rep. 863 (N.Y. 1887).

Pincite

6 N.Y. St. Rep. 863 (Smith v. Van Antwerp) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.