Commercial Bank v. Foltz
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Appeal by the defendants, Moses Foltz and another, from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the Monroe Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Monroe on the 12th day of September, 1898, determining that an undertaking, executed on behalf of Beaman Catto, on his appeal to the Court of Appeals, was insufficient to stay the execution of the judgment, and requiring a new undertaking.
1Opinion of the Court
Follett, 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. (Commercial Bank v. Catto, 20 App. Div. 236.)
August 9, 1897, a judgriient 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,…
2Cases cited3 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
3Cited by1 opinion
- Midwood Park Co. v. BakerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1911