Legal Opinion
In re the City of New York
New York Supreme Court
Decided June 8, 1938PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
McLaughlin (Charles B.), J.
Upon the settlement of the order herein the court received an application for leave to reargue. This application cannot be granted. A thorough analysis of the transaction forming the subject-matter of this litigation reveals that the deed given did not in any way constitute a mortgage.. When a deed is sought to be established as a mortgage it must appear to the satisfaction of the court that a debt existed and that the deed was given as security for payment of it. It is settled law that where there is no debt there can be no mortgage. (Bascombe v. Marshall, 129 App.…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Peters v. . DelaplaineNew York Court of Appeals · 1872
- Kraemer v. . AdelsbergerNew York Court of Appeals · 1890
- Bascombe v. MarshallAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1908
- Saxtoh v. HitchcockNew York Supreme Court · 1866
- Inhabitants of Reading v. Inhabitants of WestonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1828
3Cited by4 opinions
- Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc.California Supreme Court · 1963
- In the Matter of 716 Third Avenue Holding Corp., Bankrupt. Jeremiah F. Cross, Trustee-Appellant v. A.G v. Associates, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1964
- In re 716 Third Avenue Holding Corp.District Court, S.D. New York · 1964
- Brooks v. DietzSupreme Court of Kansas · 1976