Commercial Bank v. Foltz
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Appeal from special term. Foreclosure suit by the Commercial Bank against Moses Foltz and others. Judgment for plaintiff was affirmed in the supreme court, and defendant Beaman Catto appealed to the court of appeals. From an order determining that an undertaking in the latter appeal was insufficient to stay execution of the judgment, defendants Foltz and Catto appeal.
1Opinion of the CourtFollett, J.
October 3, 1896, a judgment of foreclosure was ■entered in this action, and a referee appointed to sell, which judgment was affirmed by this court. 20 App. Div. 236, 46 N. Y. Supp. 983. August 9, 1897, a judgment of affirmance was entered, and -September 10, 1897, the undertaking in question was executed under section 1331 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which provides that, on an appeal from a judgment directing a sale of real property, the appellant may give an undertaking conditioned that, while in possession of the realty, he will not commit or suffer waste thereon, etc. This section is…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Commercial Bank v. CattoAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1897
- National Savings Bank v. SladeNew York Supreme Court · 1896
- New York Security & Trust Co. v. Saratoga Gas & Electric Light Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1896
- Kingsland v. FullerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1898
- Kingsland v. FullerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1898
3Cited by2 opinions
- Rochester Savings Bank v. FoltzAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1898
- Rochester Savings Bank v. FoltzAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1898