Woodway Construction Corp. v. Harman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Woodway Construction Corp. v. Harman

233 A.D. 757

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

DecidedMay 15, 1931

StatusPublished

This text of 233 A.D. 757 (Woodway Construction Corp. v. Harman) 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

Woodway Construction Corp. v. Harman, 233 A.D. 757 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

Order dismissing the complaint for insufficiency reversed upon the law, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion denied, with ten dollars costs, with leave to defendants to answer within ten days from the entry of the order herein. It seems to be conceded that plaintiffs have stated a cause of action at law for Harman’s alleged deceit regarding the $10,750 which was paid for making the loan. The further allegations suffice to show that the codefendant, Wicksman, is Harman’s “ dummy ” and that Harman is the real holder and owner of said judgment. In these circumstances, an action in equity is pleaded to restrain the defendants from collecting said judgment by execution; and it may be that equity, giving full relief, will require the execution and delivery of the satisfaction piece of said judgment. Lazansky, P. J., Young, Kapper, Hagarty and Carswell, JJ., concur.

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

Order dismissing the complaint for insufficiency reversed upon the law, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion denied, with ten dollars costs, with leave to defendants to answer within ten days from the entry of the order herein. It seems to be conceded that plaintiffs have stated a cause of action at law for Harman’s alleged deceit regarding the $10,750 which was paid for making the loan. The further allegations suffice to show that the codefendant, Wicksman, is Harman’s “ dummy ” and that Harman is the real holder and owner of said judgment. In these circumstances, an action in equity is pleaded to restrain the defendants from collecting said judgment by execution; and it may be that equity, giving full relief, will require the execution and delivery of the satisfaction piece of said judgment. Lazansky, P. J., Young, Kapper, Hagarty and Carswell, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

233 A.D. 757, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/woodway-construction-corp-v-harman-nyappdiv-1931.