Legal Opinion
Voehl v. Title Guaranty & Trust Co.
New York Supreme Court
Decided May 2, 1934PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtMiller, J.
The plaintiffs have an adequate remedy at law. There is no need for a resort to equity. In Schank v. Schuchman (212 N. Y. 352, at p. 357), Judge Cardozo, writing for the court, said: “ The plaintiffs are simply seeking to get back a sum of money paid under a contract, not affecting real estate, which they have elected to declare a nullity. To render that relief effective, it is not required that a court of equity should anathematize the closed transactions. The cause of action is at law, and the legal remedy is adequate.”
In Seneca Wire & Mfg. Co. v. Leach & Co. (247 N. Y. 1, at p. 7), Judge…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Schank v. . SchuchmanNew York Court of Appeals · 1914
- Seneca Wire & Manufacturing Co. v. A. B. Leach & Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1928
- Dennin v. PowersNew York Supreme Court · 1916
- Dennin v. . FinucaneNew York Court of Appeals · 1919
3Cited by4 opinions
- E. T. C. Corp. v. Title Guarantee & Trust Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1936
- Fetzer v. Title Guarantee & Trust Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1937
- Brenner v. Title Guarantee & Trust Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1936
- Fetzer v. Title Guarantee & Trust Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1937