Matheson v. Mente
Matheson v. Mente
163 A.D. 912
Opinion of the Court
Inasmuch as George P. Stainton, the younger, was not a party to this action, the judgment as entered at Special Term would be no legal bar against him or those claiming under him, and plaintiff would not be protected thereby by acquiescence in the same. The judgment should be modified by providing for a foreclosure and sale for the full amount due thereon, with interest and costs, and as so modified affirmed, without costs. Jenks, P. J., Burr, Thomas, Carr and Putnam, JJ., concurred.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.