Legal Opinion

Kirby v. Tricker

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

Decided November 30, 1942Published

1Dissent

Carswell, J. (dissenting).

Proof was properly received sustaining the defense that there was a separate contemporaneous oral agreement or supplemental arrangement at the time the note and deed were delivered, that in the event of default under the note, the deed was to be recorded by the lender and to have full effect as an absolute conveyance, and be accepted as full payment of the debt or note.] The oral proof did not contradict but merely supplemented the note in suit. As was said by Cardozo, J., in Di Menna v. Cooper & Evans Co. (220 N. Y. 391, 397) and reiterated in Saltzman v. Barson…

Also in this document: Concurrence.

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Mooney v. . ByrneNew York Court of Appeals · 1900
  2. Di Menna v. . Cooper Evans Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1917
  3. MacAuley v. . SmithNew York Court of Appeals · 1892
  4. Saltzman v. BarsonNew York Court of Appeals · 1925
  5. Reich v. La Bau DyerNew York Court of Appeals · 1904

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API