Legal Opinion

Blum v. Hoffkins

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided November 21, 1924PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Rich, J.:

The learned trial court has found that while the bond and mortgage in suit bear defendant’s true signature, they were procured through the trick and device of her husband, and that at the time they were signed she neither knew the contents nor purport of the papers and did not intend to sign them as and for her bond and mortgage, but believed she was witnessing other papers The evidence sustains these findings, but the Special Term has found for plaintiff and decreed foreclosure of the mortgage. The question *750presented for our determination is upon whom shall the loss fall by reason…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Marden v. . DorthyNew York Court of Appeals · 1899
  2. Rapps v. . GottliebNew York Court of Appeals · 1894
  3. Aronoff v. LevineAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1919
  4. Caccioppoli v. LemmoAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1912
  5. Aronoff v. LevineNew York Supreme Court · 1919

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Lapis Enterprises, Inc. v. International Blimpie Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1981
  2. Thompson v. Bank of Commerce (In re Thompson)District Court, E.D. New York · 1982
  3. Wickers v. WickersAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1959

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API