Hyperlawhypertext legal database Muller v. City of Philadelphia 139 N.Y.S. 1134

← Cases

Muller v. City of Philadelphia

139 N.Y.S. 1134 Court N.Y. App. Div. Decision date 1913-01-10 English

Decision Majority — PER CURIAM. · Dissent — LAUGHLIN, J.

Contents

Majority

p. 1134
MULLER et al. v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA et al.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
January 10, 1913.)

Headnote

Appeal from Trial Term, New York County. Action by Charles F. Muller and others, as surviving executors,' etc., against the City of Philadelphia anti others. From the judgment, Louis Silverman and others appeal. Affirmed. See, also, 137 N. Y. Supp. 1131 . Morgan J. O’Brien, for appellant Silverman. L. E. Watren, of New York City, for appellants Brodie and Luria. J. Power Donellan, of New York City, for appellant Engel. J. Noble Hayes, Wolcott G. Lane, Charles H. Tuttle, and Joseph H. ICutner, all of New York City, for respondents.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

I dissent as to the purchase of jewelry from the defendant Silverman constituting a usurious transaction.

DOWLING, J. I dissent from the affirmance of the judgment as to Brodie, Engel, and

Dissent

p. 1135
Luria, on the ground that the transactions with them did not constitute loans, but sales of an interest in the estate. I also dissent from the affirmance of so much of the judgment as adjudges the purchases of jewelry from the defendant Silverman to have been usurious transactions.