Legal Opinion

Fitzsimmons v. Roberts

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

Decided January 4, 1933PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Per curiam

The order should be affirmed upon the ground that the defenses and the counterclaim set up in the amended answer of the defendants Roberts are insufficient as a matter of law. These parties are mortgagor-defendants in an action to foreclose a real *468estate mortgage. Defendants Hadley are their grantees of the premises. In the deed to the Hadleys they took subject to the said mortgage and also assumed and agreed to pay the amount secured by the mortgage and accompanying bond. After this action was started, the Hadleys reconveyed the premises to defendants Roberts by a quitclaim deed in which the…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Schermerhorn v. . TalmanNew York Court of Appeals · 1856
  2. Shufelt v. ShufeltNew York Court of Chancery · 1841
  3. Bennett v. . BatesNew York Court of Appeals · 1884
  4. Harrington v. SladeNew York Supreme Court · 1856
  5. Berdan v. SedgwickNew York Supreme Court · 1863

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

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Kaiser v. MeinzerSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1979
  2. Geddes Savings & Loan Ass'n v. MishelAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1982
  3. Schuler v. SchulerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1974

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

Powered by the Exa API