Case ID: ny_164/html/0564-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Sarah M. Disbrow, Respondent, v. Griffin B. Disbrow, Appellant, Impleaded with Another.
    
      Disbrow v. Disbrow, 31 App. Div. 624, affirmed.
    (Argued June 19, 1900;
    decided October 2, 1900.)
    Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered June 18, 1898, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term.
    
      Charles A. Decker and Jacob F. Miller for appellant.
    
      James JR. Fcmcher for respondent.
   Per Curiam.

We do not concur in the strictures passed upon counsel in the opinion at the Appellate Division, but as we cannot say that there was no evidence to support the findings to the effect that the execution and delivery of the deed were not the voluntary acts of the plaintiff, but was brought about by undue influence exercised on the part of the defendant, who stood in a confidential relation towards her, we are constrained to affirm the judgment.

The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

Parker, Oh. J., O’Brien, Bartlett, Vann, Landon, Cullen, and Werner, JJ., concur.

Judgment affirmed.