Taylor v. McChesney

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Taylor v. McChesney

261 A.D. 1117, 27 N.Y.S.2d 312, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9027

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

DecidedApril 30, 1941

StatusPublished

This text of 261 A.D. 1117 (Taylor v. McChesney) 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

Taylor v. McChesney, 261 A.D. 1117, 27 N.Y.S.2d 312, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9027 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1941).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, entered in the Albany county clerk’s office on October 5,1940, granting leave to issue and execute an execution for the delivery of the possession of real property. The judgment in this action decreed that the plaintiffs were the owners in fee simple of the lands described in the complaint and that they recovered possession thereof from the defendant. Upon an appeal to this court this judgment was unanimously affirmed (233 App. Div. 782) and thereafter motions for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals were denied by this court (Id. 881) and the Court of Appeals (not reported) respectively. Upon the previous appeals the same arguments were presented as to the indefiniteness of the judgment and its insufficiency as the basis of an execution. The execution will not require the sheriff to perform the impossible. If from the judgment he is unable to locate the boundary, he may make such a return. Order unanimously affirmed, with twenty-five dollars costs and disbursements. Present —• Hill, P. J., Bliss, HefEeman, Schenck and Foster, JJ.

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

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, entered in the Albany county clerk’s office on October 5,1940, granting leave to issue and execute an execution for the delivery of the possession of real property. The judgment in this action decreed that the plaintiffs were the owners in fee simple of the lands described in the complaint and that they recovered possession thereof from the defendant. Upon an appeal to this court this judgment was unanimously affirmed (233 App. Div. 782) and thereafter motions for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals were denied by this court (Id. 881) and the Court of Appeals (not reported) respectively. Upon the previous appeals the same arguments were presented as to the indefiniteness of the judgment and its insufficiency as the basis of an execution. The execution will not require the sheriff to perform the impossible. If from the judgment he is unable to locate the boundary, he may make such a return. Order unanimously affirmed, with twenty-five dollars costs and disbursements. Present —• Hill, P. J., Bliss, HefEeman, Schenck and Foster, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

261 A.D. 1117, 27 N.Y.S.2d 312, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9027, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/taylor-v-mcchesney-nyappdiv-1941.