Titterington v. Colvin

New York Court of Appeals

Titterington v. Colvin

1 N.E.2d 116, 270 N.Y. 321, 1936 N.Y. LEXIS 1547

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 10, 1936

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 1 N.E.2d 116 (Titterington v. Colvin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Titterington v. Colvin, 1 N.E.2d 116, 270 N.Y. 321, 1936 N.Y. LEXIS 1547 (N.Y. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This court affirmed without opinion upon the ground that, since the action was one at law for damages and not in equity and, therefore, proof was *322 required of actual fraud, the Appellate Division had correctly reversed and granted a new trial. The appellant having stipulated for judgment absolute the only question presented for decision was the correctness of the reversal by the Appellate Division and that having been shown, an affirmance by this court followed. We do not approve the ruling below that the contract was void under Topken, Loring & Schwartz, Inc., v. Schwartz (249 N. Y. 206). The motion for reargument should be denied.

Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Crouch, Loughran and Finch, JJ., concur.

Motion denied.

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

Per Curiam.

This court affirmed without opinion upon the ground that, since the action was one at law for damages and not in equity and, therefore, proof was *322 required of actual fraud, the Appellate Division had correctly reversed and granted a new trial. The appellant having stipulated for judgment absolute the only question presented for decision was the correctness of the reversal by the Appellate Division and that having been shown, an affirmance by this court followed. We do not approve the ruling below that the contract was void under Topken, Loring & Schwartz, Inc., v. Schwartz (249 N. Y. 206). The motion for reargument should be denied.

Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Crouch, Loughran and Finch, JJ., concur.

Motion denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 N.E.2d 116, 270 N.Y. 321, 1936 N.Y. LEXIS 1547, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/titterington-v-colvin-ny-1936.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack