Legal Opinion

Fogal v. Pirro

The Superior Court of New York City

Decided April 15, 1860PublishedCited by 1 opinion

I. The complaint should have been dismissed. 1. It did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. (Dunlap a. Gibbs, 4 Yerg., 94; Hoare a. Peck, 6 Sim., 51; Cuthbert a. Creasy, 4 Bligh., O.S., 125; Wienes a. Ogden, 4 Wash. C. C., 631; Fyson a. Pole, 3 Younge & Coll., 266; Story's Eq. Pl., 484, 503, 529; 3 Rev. Stat., 5 ed., 503, § 78; Humbert a. Trinity Church, 7 Paige, 195; 3 Atk., 313; Jenner a. Tracy, 3 P. Wms., 287, n. B; Beekman a.

Read the full summary

1Opinion of the Court

I. April, 1860.—Trial by the court.

This action was brought by Catharine Fogal, Sophia Randall, Peter Provoost, Amanda Tyte, Charles M. Day, John Eogal, Alexander Tyte, and Colloon Randall, against Joseph Pirro, and John Raab, to redeem a certain lot in Essex-street, New York city, alleged, in the complaint, to belong in fee ,to the plaintiffs, from the operation of a certain mortgage, and to regain the premises.

The complaint alleged that on the 9th of November, 180é, Peter Colyer, of Kings county, was seized in fee and possessed of three lots of ground, in the city of New York, one of them…

2Cases cited42 opinions

Ricard v. WilliamsSupreme Court of the United States · 1822
Carver v. JacksonSupreme Court of the United States · 1830
Douglass v. HowlandNew York Supreme Court · 1840
Dickerson v. TillinghastNew York Court of Chancery · 1833
Demarest v. WynkoopNew York Court of Chancery · 1817

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

3Cited by1 opinion

Hope v. ShevillAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1910