Marden v. . Dorthy
New York Court of Appeals
Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, entered December 23, 1896, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a decision of the court on trial at a Monroe Equity Term. The nature of the action and the facts, so far as material, are stated in the opinions.
Read the full summary
Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, entered December 23, 1896, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a decision of the court on trial at a Monroe Equity Term. The nature of the action and the facts, so far as material, are stated in the opinions. The conclusions of law of the trial court were erroneous; if the plaintiff was induced to sign the deed by some fraud of Dorthy, on whom she relied, she, and not the mortgagees, must suffer the consequences of that fraud. (Chapman v. Rose, 56 N. Y. 137; Simpson v.…
1Concurrence
It appears to me there are three fundamental propositions upon which the law is well settled that stand in the way of a reversal.
This case was tried before the court, who makes specific findings of facts and conclusions of law. The judgment of the Special Term was unanimously affirmed in the Appellate Division. Under the Constitution this settles the facts to be as found. The trial court found that the plaintiff's signature to the deed was procured by John F. Dorthy "by some trick or artifice perpetrated by him in some way or manner which does not appear and is unknown to the plaintiff."…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Brant v. Virginia Coal & Iron Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1876
- Trustees of the Freeholders & Commonalty v. SmithNew York Court of Appeals · 1890
- The People v. . Bank of North AmericaNew York Court of Appeals · 1879
- Barnard v. . CampbellNew York Court of Appeals · 1874
- Wilcox v. . HowellNew York Court of Appeals · 1871
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.