Legal Opinion
McGee v. Friedman
New York Supreme Court
Decided January 2, 1931PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtRogers, J.
Two defenses are made to the enforcement of the agreement: First That according to its terms the defendant was not to assume the payment of the mortgage unless he sold the property within the year period during which the payment was extended. Second. That the agreement is void for usury.
I think the first contention is untenable, and the second good.
The agreement is as follows:
“ June 12, 1929
“ Mr. William Friedman,
“ 35 DeCamp Avenue,
“ Schenectady, N. Y.
“ Dear Sir: According to our agreement relative to the second mortgage held in this office covering Nos. 15-17 Congress Street, Schenectady, we…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Browne v. . VredenburghNew York Court of Appeals · 1870
- Diehl v. . BeckerNew York Court of Appeals · 1919
- Sumner v. . the PeopleNew York Court of Appeals · 1864
- Ganz v. . LancasterNew York Court of Appeals · 1902
- U. T. Hungerford Brass & Copper Co. v. BrighamNew York Supreme Court · 1905
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Cusick v. IfshinCivil Court of the City of New York · 1972
- Yager v. Rubymar Corp.New York Supreme Court · 1962