Legal Opinion

Schum v. Burchard

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided November 7, 1924PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

The following is the opinion delivered at Trial Term:

Cropsey, J.:

The action is to remove a cloud on title. Both sides concede the decision turns upon the sufficiency of the acknowledgment to the deed under which defendant claims. Both sides claim title through a common grantor. The plaintiffs and their ancestor failed to record their deed, and the deed to defendant, though made many years subsequent, was recorded. If it was entitled to be recorded concededly the defendant should have judgment. The fact that the deed has been recorded does not prove it was properly acknowledged. (Armstrong v.…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Fryer v. . RockefellerNew York Court of Appeals · 1875
  2. Smith v. . BoydNew York Court of Appeals · 1886
  3. Armstrong v. CombsAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1897
  4. Wood v. BachNew York Supreme Court · 1869

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Weinstein v. WeinsteinAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2007
  2. Newton Finance Corp. v. ConnerTennessee Supreme Court · 1930
  3. Fahey v. OttenheimerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1927
  4. Abrams v. Nat Lewis Purses, Inc.New York Supreme Court · 1939

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

Powered by the Exa API