Case Name: ANDREW W. SCHELLING, Respondent v. CORD BISCHOFF, et al., Appellants
Court: New York Superior Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1891-03-02
Citations: 27 Jones & S. 562
Docket Number: 
Parties: ANDREW W. SCHELLING, Respondent v. CORD BISCHOFF, et al., Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases argued and determined in the Superior Court of the city of New York
Volume: 59
Pages: 562–562

Head Matter:
ANDREW W. SCHELLING, Respondent v. CORD BISCHOFF, et al., Appellants.
Findings, construction of~In an action for the cancellation of a bill of sale for fraud and false representations, the court below, in the findings, held that the bill of sale wasobtained by means of fraudulent representations specified in the findings. The plaintiff's evidence showed that those representations were not made until after the delivery of the bill of sale. There were other circumstances of fraud found by the court which might suffice of themselves to reqiáre the cancellation of the bill of sale. The judgment was for a cancellation of the bill of sale. Held, that as the findings showed that the judgment was placed rather on the fraudulent representations than upon the other circumstances of fraud, it should be reversed.
Before Sedgwick, Ch. J., Truax and Dugro, JJ.
Decided March 2, 1891.
Appeal from a judgment canceling a bill of sale entered on findings and conclusions made by the judge on a trial at an Equity Term before the court without a jury.
Uriah W. Tompkins, attorney and of counsel, for appellants.
James Forrest, attorney, and Peter Condon and G. A. Seixas of counsel, for respondent.

Opinion:
> The Court (per Curiam) held as stated in the' headnote, and reversed the judgment.