Darrow v. Calkins
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Motion bv the defendants, Lyman Darrow Calkins and others, for a new trial under section 1001 of the Code of Civil Procedure, upon exceptions taken to the ruling of the court, directing the entry' of an interlocutory judgment of partition and sale, in favor of the plaintiffs, which judgment was entered in the clerk’s office of the county of Kings on the 18th day of October, 1895. This action was brought for the partition of certain lands in the city of Brooklyn.
Read the full summary
Motion bv the defendants, Lyman Darrow Calkins and others, for a new trial under section 1001 of the Code of Civil Procedure, upon exceptions taken to the ruling of the court, directing the entry' of an interlocutory judgment of partition and sale, in favor of the plaintiffs, which judgment was entered in the clerk’s office of the county of Kings on the 18th day of October, 1895. This action was brought for the partition of certain lands in the city of Brooklyn. The plaintiffs, as children and heirs at law of one Edwin J. Darrow claim title to one undivided half of such lands, subject to the…
1Opinion of the Court
Hatch, J.:
It was undisputed upon the trial that the real property held by Daniel 0. Calkins, by virtue of the deed to him from Darrow and wife, was the property of the partnership of Calkins & Darrow, paid for with its funds. Consequently it is of little importance whether such deed be held in form to vest the legal title to the property in Calkins absolutely, or in trust for the partnership, or whether its effect is to create a power in trust, for in any event it could not operate to create a greater right in Calkins than equity would allow where the interests of all the parties are…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Buchan v. SumnerNew York Court of Chancery · 1847
- Fairchild v. . FairchildNew York Court of Appeals · 1876
- Shanks v. KleinSupreme Court of the United States · 1881
- Collumb v. . ReadNew York Court of Appeals · 1862
- Godfrey v. WhiteMichigan Supreme Court · 1880
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Thompson v. FlynnMontana Supreme Court · 1936
- Willis v. McKinnonNew York Supreme Court · 1902