Legal Opinion

Metropolitan Savings Bank v. Tuttle

New York Court of Appeals

Decided May 25, 1944PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtRippey, J.

This action was brought to foreclose a mortgage upon real property. The appellants, parties defendant in that action, moved at Special Term to dismiss the complaint under rule 106 of the Rules of Civil Practice on the ground that the complaint, upon its face, was insufficient as a matter of law. That motion was granted with permission to serve a supplemental complaint. After service of the supplemental complaint, the same defendants moved on the same ground to dismiss that pleading, which motion was denied at Special Term. Thereupon an appeal was taken from that order denying that motion and…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. United Press v. . New York Press Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1900
  2. Ansorge v. KaneNew York Court of Appeals · 1927
  3. Kaumagraph Co. v. . Stampagraph Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1923
  4. Dudley v. . PerkinsNew York Court of Appeals · 1923
  5. Matter of BakerNew York Court of Appeals · 1940

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Abbott v. Page Airways, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1969
  2. Metropolitan Savings Bank v. TuttleNew York Supreme Court · 1944
  3. People v. AlfonsoNew York Court of Appeals · 1959
  4. Hammel v. Camp Ranger, Inc.New York Supreme Court · 1950

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API