From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Titterington v. Colvin

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Mar 10, 1936
1 N.E.2d 116 (N.Y. 1936)

Opinion

Submitted March 2, 1936

Decided March 10, 1936


This court affirmed without opinion upon the ground that, since the action was one at law for damages and not in equity and, therefore, proof was required of actual fraud, the Appellate Division had correctly reversed and granted a new trial. The appellant having stipulated for judgment absolute the only question presented for decision was the correctness of the reversal by the Appellate Division and that having been shown, an affirmance by this court followed. We do not approve the ruling below that the contract was void under Topken, Loring Schwartz, Inc., v. Schwartz ( 249 N.Y. 206).

The motion for reargument should be denied.

CRANE, Ch. J., LEHMAN, O'BRIEN, HUBBS, CROUCH, LOUGHRAN and FINCH, JJ., concur.

Motion denied.


Summaries of

Titterington v. Colvin

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Mar 10, 1936
1 N.E.2d 116 (N.Y. 1936)
Case details for

Titterington v. Colvin

Case Details

Full title:GEORGE A. TITTERINGTON, as Executor of MORRIS M. TITTERINGTON, Deceased…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Mar 10, 1936

Citations

1 N.E.2d 116 (N.Y. 1936)
1 N.E.2d 116

Citing Cases

Zacharia v. Schlossberg

The only question to be determined here is whether plaintiffs proved their causes of action for fraud,…

Steinbugler v. William C. Atwater Co., Inc.

(Civ. Prac. Act, § 480.) Hagarty, Carswell, Adel and Taylor, JJ., concur; Lazansky, P.J., concurs in the…