From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

APFELBERG v. LAX

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 1, 1930
230 App. Div. 865 (N.Y. App. Div. 1930)

Opinion

October, 1930.


Orders denying motions to dismiss amended complaint reversed upon the law, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motions granted, with ten dollars costs. In our opinion, the parties to the bond and mortgage contracted in view of the New Jersey statute, and intended that it should apply and be followed in enforcing the contract. Plaintiff not having complied with the provision of the statute relating to filing of notice of this action, her action is, therefore, barred. Lazansky, P.J., Young, Kapper, Scudder and Tompkins, JJ., concur.

See 3 N.J. Comp. Stat. 3423, §§ 51, 52; N.J. Laws of 1907, chap. 231, pp. 563, 564, §§ 1, 2. — [REP.


Summaries of

APFELBERG v. LAX

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 1, 1930
230 App. Div. 865 (N.Y. App. Div. 1930)
Case details for

APFELBERG v. LAX

Case Details

Full title:MARY APFELBERG, Respondent, v. ANNIE LAX, as Executrix, etc., of HARRY…

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

Date published: Oct 1, 1930

Citations

230 App. Div. 865 (N.Y. App. Div. 1930)

Citing Cases

McGough v. Derby

In the foreclosure action the debt evidenced by the bond was necessarily adjudicated by the courts of that…