Price v. Phillips
The Superior Court of New York City
This was a controversy submitted, without action, under the 372d section of the Code of Procedure, upon the following facts: On the 28 th of December, 1864, an instrument in writing was duly made and entered into between the above named plaintiffs, then being in possession as owners of the premises hereinafter described, and one Warren Brady, by which the plaintiffs agreed to sell to the said Brady, or his assigns, the certain gore lot described as follows : “ All that…
Read the full summary
This was a controversy submitted, without action, under the 372d section of the Code of Procedure, upon the following facts: On the 28 th of December, 1864, an instrument in writing was duly made and entered into between the above named plaintiffs, then being in possession as owners of the premises hereinafter described, and one Warren Brady, by which the plaintiffs agreed to sell to the said Brady, or his assigns, the certain gore lot described as follows : “ All that certain lot, piece or parcel of land, situate, lying and being in the twelfth ward of the city of New York, and distinguished…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court, Barbour, J.
As the official assignee in bankruptcy was not a party to the foreclosure suit, and is, for that reason, wholly unaffected by the judgment and sale had thereunder, the only question for our consideration is, whether such assignee now has such an estate and interest in the premises which are the subject of this controversy as materially to affect the title of the plaintiffs.
Upon and by the entry of the decree in the bankruptcy proceedings, and the appointment of Mr. Waddell as assignee, such assignee became and was, ipso facto, the owner in fee of the premises in…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Maskrey v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1909
- Kunmengeiser v. JunckerSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1876
- Citizens Bank v. TuckerSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1844
- Dabadie v. PoydrasSupreme Court of Louisiana · 1848