Case ID: ny_241/html/0588-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Peppard Realty Co., Inc., Respondent, v. Emil F. Emdon, Appellant.
    
      Trust — real property — principal and agent — action to impress trust upon real property — agent employed by owner of equity of redemption to arrange loan to enable such owner to bid in property at foreclosure sale — property bid in by third party who transferred title to agent — trust impressed upon property for benefit of principal.
    
    
      Peppard Realty Co., Inc., v. Emdon, 213 App. Div. 824, affirmed.
    (Argued November 24, 1925;
    decided December 15, 1925.)
    Appeal, by permission, from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered April 6, 1925, affirming an interlocutory judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term. The action was to impress a trust for the benefit of plaintiff upon real property in the city of Brooklyn. It was alleged that plaintiff, who owned the equity of redemption in the property, employed defendant to find some one who would supply the money necessary to enable plaintiff to bid in said property at the foreclosure sale; that the property was bid in by a third party, who transferred the bid to the defendant, who took title but refused to account to plaintiff for the property.
    The following questions were certified:
    
      “ 1. Are the facts found by the trial court sufficient to support the conclusions of law and the judgment?
    
      “2. Is there sufficient evidence to support the material findings of fact herein?
    “ 3. Is there sufficient evidence to support each and every of the findings of fact numbered 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 33, 34, 36, 41?
    
      “ 4. Did the refusal of the trial court to find facts requested by the defendant constitute reversible error?
    
      “ 5. Did the refusal of the trial court to find as requested by the defendant in any or all of the proposed findings of fact numbered II, III, VI, IX, X, XI, XII, XIII, XIV, XV, XVI, XVII, XVIII, XIX, XX, XXI, XXIII, XXIV, XXV, XXVI, XXVII, XXVIII, constitute reversible error?
    
      “ 6. Should the complaint have been dismissed at the opening of the case on defendant’s motion?
    “ 7. Should the action have been dismissed at the close of the case on defendant’s motion?
    “ 8. Is defendant, appellant, entitled to a reversal of the judgment, and either a dismissal of the complaint or a new trial? ”
    
      Ralph G. Barclay, Jay S. Jones and Edward J. Fanning for appellant.
    
      Charles S. Rosenschein and Robert Moers for respondent.
   Judgment affirmed, with costs; questions certified answered as follows; Nos. 1, 2 and 3 in affirmative; other questions not answered; no opinion.

Concur: His cock, Ch. J., Cardozo, Pound, McLaughlin, Crane, Andrews and Lehman, JJ.