Legal Opinion

Concklin v. . Taylor

New York Court of Appeals

Decided January 16, 1877PublishedCited by 2 opinions

Appeal by plaintiffs and defendant from an order of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the third judicial department affirming an order at Special Term, which vacated a satisfaction-piece, executed by the plaintiffs of a judgment in their favor herein. The motion was made on behalf of William W. Taylor, who claimed as assignee of the judgment.

Read the full summary

Appeal by plaintiffs and defendant from an order of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the third judicial department affirming an order at Special Term, which vacated a satisfaction-piece, executed by the plaintiffs of a judgment in their favor herein. The motion was made on behalf of William W. Taylor, who claimed as assignee of the judgment. He produced assignments of the judgment from plaintiffs to David Taylor and from the latter to himself, the former executed in 1858, the latter in 1811. The satisfaction was dated July 16, 1813. The motion was opposed upon the grounds that the…

1Per curiam

This is an appeal from an order of the General Term of the Supreme Court, directing that the satisfaction of a judgment, executed by two of the plaintiffs to the defendant, be vacated without prejudice to an action or proceeding to ascertain what amount, if any, was due upon the judgment. Upon the motion being made at Special Term, the judge ordered a reference to take testimony and report the same with his opinion upon the questions of fact. First. As to the ownership of the judgment. Second. Whether the consideration of the assignment of the same was paid for out of the property of the…

2Cited by2 opinions

  1. Horton v. . CantwellNew York Court of Appeals · 1888
  2. Miller v. von SchwarzensteinAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1900

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API