Graves v. Mumford
New York Supreme Court
THIS action Was brought to have a bond and mortgage) which is held by the defendant Mary M. Mumford, abd which is a lieñ upon the plaintiff’s farm, delivered up and canceled.
Read the full summary
THIS action Was brought to have a bond and mortgage) which is held by the defendant Mary M. Mumford, abd which is a lieñ upon the plaintiff’s farm, delivered up and canceled. The case was this: On or aboilt the 1st of February, 1847, the defendant Salmon Gorsline applied to Frederick Whittlesey, then of the city of Rochester, since deceased, for a loan of" #3000, to be secured by his bond and a mortgage upon the farm in question, then owned by said Gorsline, situated in the town of IrondeqUoit, in the county of Monroe, and particularly described in the complaint. Whittlesey, as the1 agent of…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court, Welles, J.
The justice, at the special term, found that the money with which Whittlesey paid Potter the amount due on the Parsons mortgage was the money of the defendant Mumford, and was in his, Whittlesey’s, hands for the purpose of investment. , This, I think, was warranted hy the evidence. Assuming that Mrs. Mumford is chargeable with knowledge of all the facts in relation to the transactions between Whittlesey, Varick and Gorsline, it was nevertheless competent for her to make Whittlesey her agent to invest her money, either with specific instructions as to the -nature of the…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Henken v. . SchwickerNew York Court of Appeals · 1903
- Josephthal v. HeymanNew York Supreme Court · 1876
- Henken v. SchwickerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1901
- Johnstone v. HorowitzAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1910
- Fatta v. EdgertonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1913