New York Supreme Court, 1888

Houseman v. Bodine

Houseman v. Bodine
New York Supreme Court · Decided February 13, 1888 · Pratt
14 N.Y. St. Rep. 932

Counsel

De Groot, Ransom & Stafford, for resp’t; Townsend, Pyett & Einstein, for app’lt.

Houseman v. Bodine

Opinion of the Court

Pratt, J.

It is entirely clear that the covenant was executed by defendant with the intent to make the bond and mortgage valid securities in the hands of the plaintiff.

We think he succeeded in the effort, and that he is estopped from any defense.

The bond and mortgage were assigned in pursuance of the agreement of defendant who.cannot expect the court to relieve him from the consequences of his act.

All the circumstances corroborate the plaintiff, and the judgment of the special term should be affirmed, with costs.

Barnard, P. J., and Dykman, J., concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.