Hinckley v. Kreitz
The Superior Court of New York City
Appeal from judgment and from order denying motion for a new trial made on minutes. Upon an appeal taken by one Anschutz from a judgment in the Court of Common Pleas against him, in favor of the plaintiff’s assignor, he gave an undertaking with these defendants as sureties. The appeal was from the Special to the General Term.
Read the full summary
Appeal from judgment and from order denying motion for a new trial made on minutes. Upon an appeal taken by one Anschutz from a judgment in the Court of Common Pleas against him, in favor of the plaintiff’s assignor, he gave an undertaking with these defendants as sureties. The appeal was from the Special to the General Term. The undertaking, after reciting the judgment and the appeal therefrom, was as follows : “Wow therefore, we, William Kreitz, of Wo. 156 East Houston Street, in the city of Wew York, and Emil Unger, of Wo. 46 East Houston Street, in said city, do hereby, pursuant to the…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court.—Monell, J.
There was no disputed -question of fact in the case which required submission to the jury. The proof of the transfer of the judgment to the plaintiff was clear and abundant. Not only the written assignment which was not impeached, but the parol evidence furnished by the defendants, established very conclusively that the title to the judgment was in the plaintiff. The intermediate assignments from Bennstaedt (the plaintiff in the judgment) to Gunther, and from Gunther to Elwood, formed the links in the chain of title, after proof of the assignment from Elwood to the…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Traver v. NicholsNew York Supreme Court · 1831
- Ball v. GardnerNew York Supreme Court · 1839
- Smith v. CrouseNew York Supreme Court · 1857
- Tibbles v. O'ConnorNew York Supreme Court · 1858
- Seacord v. MorganNew York Court of Appeals · 1867
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.