Legal Opinion
Wright v. Day
New York Supreme Court
Decided April 15, 1908PublishedCited by 3 opinions
Issues of law upon demurrer to complaint for defect of parties defendant.
1Opinion of the CourtBischoff, J.
The action is to rescind and cancel a certain bond and mortgage upon real property, executed by the plaintiff to one James Larkin, and alleged to have been procured by the fraud of Tames Mendels, acting as Larkin’s agent. The complaint alleges that the bond and mortgage were assigned by Larkin to Edward H. M. Roehr and by the latter to Charles T. Day who holds them as collateral security for a loan made to Roehr by the Oriental Bank, and that, in an *77action by the plaintiff against Roehr, in this court, the same bond and mortgage were adjudged to be null and void. Only Day and the Oriental…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Washington Gas Light Co. v. District of ColumbiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1896
- Carleton v. . Lombard, Ayres Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1896
- Seiferd v. MulliganAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1898
3Cited by3 opinions
- Schneider v. HenleyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1923
- American Bond & Mortgage Co. v. LindsayCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1920
- Wright v. DayAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1909