Belden v. Meeker
New York Supreme Court
Tins was an action to foreclose a mortgage. The facts are O O sufficiently stated in the opinion of the court.
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court
Talcott, J.
Appeal from judgment in a foreclosure case rendered by Mr. Justice Jomrsosr at Special Term, in Steuben county.
James M. Osborn and Peter Wells were copartners in keeping a hotel, which was also owned by them. On the 14th of July, 1856, they had a note for $4,000 payable three months after date, discounted by the bank of Hornellsville, a bank organized under the general banking law. At the same time and as collateral to the note, they executed and delivered to “ Samuel Hallett, president of the Bank of Hornellsville,” their joint bond conditioned for the payment of the…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Vanderkemp v. SheltonNew York Court of Chancery · 1844
- Barber v. WinslowNew York Supreme Court · 1834
- Sibley v. . WaffleNew York Court of Appeals · 1857
- Elwell v. DodgeNew York Supreme Court · 1861
- Hoyt v. HoytThe Superior Court of New York City · 1861
3Cited by8 opinions
- Shaw v. New York Central & Hudson River RailroadAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1905
- Bacon v. Van SchoonhovenNew York Supreme Court · 1879
- Carroll v. CarrollNew York Supreme Court · 1874
- Parhan v. MoranNew York Supreme Court · 1875
- People ex rel. Cummings v. GreeneAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1906
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.