Zindel v. Finck

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Zindel v. Finck

120 N.Y.S. 738

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJanuary 21, 1910

StatusPublished

This text of 120 N.Y.S. 738 (Zindel v. Finck) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Zindel v. Finck, 120 N.Y.S. 738 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1910).

Pincite

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

Action in conversion. Plaintiff applied to defendant to purchase a house for him, and intrusted defendant with all the money. He did not even attend the closing. Among the cash given by plaintiff to defendant was $175 for a title policy. The defense sought to show that plaintiff had his dealings with a man in Fiñck’s office, who did not represent Finck. The evidence is perfectly clear that this is a subterfuge. Undoubtedly Finck got all of plaintiff’s money in this transaction. It is demonstrable from the record that no title policy was given to plaintiff. Without discussing other serious questions in the case, the judgment for defendant must be reversed.

Judgment reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event.

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

PER CURIAM.

Action in conversion. Plaintiff applied to defendant to purchase a house for him, and intrusted defendant with all the money. He did not even attend the closing. Among the cash given by plaintiff to defendant was $175 for a title policy. The defense sought to show that plaintiff had his dealings with a man in Fiñck’s office, who did not represent Finck. The evidence is perfectly clear that this is a subterfuge. Undoubtedly Finck got all of plaintiff’s money in this transaction. It is demonstrable from the record that no title policy was given to plaintiff. Without discussing other serious questions in the case, the judgment for defendant must be reversed.

Judgment reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

120 N.Y.S. 738, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zindel-v-finck-nyappterm-1910.