From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Klein v. Meisels

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Mar 9, 1938
254 App. Div. 603 (N.Y. App. Div. 1938)

Opinion

March 9, 1938.

Appeal from Supreme Court, Greene County.

Present — Hill, P.J., McNamee, Crapser, Bliss and Heffernan, JJ.


This is an action to foreclose two mortgages on real estate, the first for $8,000 and the second for $1,000. The evidence sustains the official referee in his finding that the $8,000 mortgage was usurious and that the mortgagors received only $7,000 consideration for it. When it came due the time of payment was extended by an extension agreement executed by the original parties to the mortgage which states that there was then due and unpaid on the bond and mortgage $8,000 of principal. At the same time the second mortgage of $1,000 was given by the same mortgagors to the same mortgagee. The two mortgages were then assigned to plaintiff. The official referee has found that, although the original $8,000 mortgage was usurious, the plaintiff had no notice of this fact, and that the mortgagors represented to him that it was valid and that there was $8,000 of principal unpaid thereon, and that the mortgagors were, therefore, estopped from claiming that the mortgage was usurious and void to the extent of $7,000, which was the amount actually paid therefor by the plaintiff on the purchase thereof. This case apparently comes squarely within the rule of Miller v. Zimmer ( 111 N.Y. 441). Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs.


Summaries of

Klein v. Meisels

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Mar 9, 1938
254 App. Div. 603 (N.Y. App. Div. 1938)
Case details for

Klein v. Meisels

Case Details

Full title:LOUIS KLEIN, Respondent, v. ALEXANDER S. MEISELS, Appellant, and HANNAH…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department

Date published: Mar 9, 1938

Citations

254 App. Div. 603 (N.Y. App. Div. 1938)

Citing Cases

Seidel v. 18 East 17th Street Owners

t of Appeals explained in Hammelburger v Foursome Inn Corp. ( 54 N.Y.2d 580, 587-588), "The basis for the…

Hammelburger v. Foursome Inn

tle Guar. Trust Co., 204 N.Y. 458, 464, supra; Restatement, Contracts 2d, § 90, Comment a), and the…