Taylor v. Derrick

New York Supreme Court

Taylor v. Derrick

19 N.Y.S. 785, 46 N.Y. St. Rep. 583, 64 Hun 636

New York Supreme Court·Decided July 2, 1892·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Putnam, J.

I think the order of Judge Fursman should be affirmed, and that the case is one where an opinion is unnecessary. The final judgment in the case was entered in 1882, directing foreclosure, and sale and judgment for deficiency against appellants. No motion is made to set aside or modify that judgment. Such being the case, it was not necessary, in 1891, to enter any further or other judgment, nor, as against the defendants, an order confirming the report. If there is any irregularity in the proceedings of the plaintiff, it seems to be a harmless one, and hence, under section 721 of the Civil Code, should be disregarded. See Moore v. Shaw, 15 Hun, 428; Morris v. Morange, 38 N. Y. 172. All concur

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

Putnam, J.

I think the order of Judge Fursman should be affirmed, and that the case is one where an opinion is unnecessary. The final judgment in the case was entered in 1882, directing foreclosure, and sale and judgment for deficiency against appellants. No motion is made to set aside or modify that judgment. Such being the case, it was not necessary, in 1891, to enter any further or other judgment, nor, as against the defendants, an order confirming the report. If there is any irregularity in the proceedings of the plaintiff, it seems to be a harmless one, and hence, under section 721 of the Civil Code, should be disregarded. See Moore v. Shaw, 15 Hun, 428; Morris v. Morange, 38 N. Y. 172. All concur

Taylor v. Derrick, 19 N.Y.S. 785, 46 N.Y. St. Rep. 583, 64 Hun 636 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1892).

Pincite

19 N.Y.S. 785 (Taylor v. Derrick) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related