Ansbacher v. New York Trust Co.

CourtNew York Court of Appeals
Writing for the CourtO'BRIEN
Citation19 N.E.2d 790,280 N.Y. 79
Decision Date28 February 1939
PartiesANSBACHER v. NEW YORK TRUST CO.

280 N.Y. 79
19 N.E.2d 790

ANSBACHER
v.
NEW YORK TRUST CO.

Court of Appeals of New York.

Feb. 28, 1939.


Action by Clara W. Ansbacher against the New York Trust Company based on the company's alleged negligent and unauthorized grant of consent to entry of a judgment condemning certain property which constituted part of property mortgaged to secure bonds, part of which were owned by the plaintiff. From an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, entered May 20, 1938, 254 App.Div. 727, 5 N.Y.S.2d 767, which unanimously affirmed so far as appealed from an order of the Special Term denying a motion by plaintiff to strike out the first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, eighth, ninth, and tenth separate defenses set forth in the answer, the plaintiff appeals by permission.

Order affirmed, and certain certified questions answered in affirmative.

The following questions were certified:

‘1. Is the First Separate Defense contained in the answer herein sufficient in law on the face thereof?

‘2. Is the Second Separate Defense sufficient in law on the face thereof?

‘3. Is the Third Separate Defense sufficient in law on the face thereof?

‘4. Is the Fourth Separate Defense sufficient in law on the face thereof?

‘5. Is the Fifth Separate Defense sufficient in law on the face thereof?

‘6. Is the Sixth Separate Defense sufficient in law on the face thereof?

‘7. Is the Eighth Separate Defense sufficient in law on the face thereof?

‘8. Is the Ninth Separate Defense sufficient in law on the face thereof?

‘9. Is the Tenth Separate and Partial Defense sufficient in law on the face thereof?’

[19 N.E.2d 791]

Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First department.

[19 N.E.2d 792]


William S. Bennet, Victor House, and Samuel H. Levinkind, all of New York City, for appellant.

Clifford P. Case, Morgan J. Callahan, Jr., and James P. Murtagh, all of New York City, for respondent.


O'BRIEN, Judge.

Questions of pleadings are here involved.

The complaint alleges that in the year 1928 the White River Bridge Company, a Delaware corporation, executed a deed of trust with defendant New York Trust Company whereby it mortgaged to the trust company as trustee for the owners of $500,000 six per cent bonds to be issued by the bridge company certain of its property, including its franchise for a toll bridge in Arkansas and the toll bridge itself and its approaches. Plaintiff is the holder of $10,000 of these bonds.

Section 3 of article V of the deed of trust provides that if any of the mortgaged property be taken by the exercise of the power of eminent domain, ‘the Trustee may release the property so taken * * * and shall be fully protected in doing so upon being furnished with a written opinion of counsel * * * to the effect that such property has been taken by the exercise of the power of eminent domain * * * and upon the receipt by the Trustee of the proceeds of the property so taken * * *.’

In the year 1930 the State of Arkansas by condemnation acquired title to this bridge property. The only parties to that proceeding were the State of Arkansas, as plaintiff, and the White River Bridge Company and the New York Trust Company, as defendants. The judgment in the Arkansas Circuit Court was entered September 18, 1930, by consent of all the parties, recites the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 practice notes
  • Greenbie v. Noble
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • April 3, 1957
    ...Engineering Co. v. Universal Oil Products Co., D.C.S.D.N.Y., 1947, 79 F.Supp. 1013, 1020; Ansbacher v. New York Trust Company, 280 N.Y. 79, 19 N.E.2d 790; Oglesby v. Cranwell, 2d Dept., 1937, 250 App.Div. 720, 293 N.Y.S. In order to ascertain where the cause of action arose, it first become......
  • York v. Guaranty Trust Co. of New York, No. 256.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • May 25, 1944
    ...the trustee was grossly negligent but that, on the facts before it, there was no showing of bad faith. In Ansbacher v. New York Trust Co., 280 N.Y. 79, 19 N. E.2d 790, the court held that, on the particular facts stated in the pleadings, the trustee was not guilty of gross negligence or bad......
  • Driscoll v. Fitch
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • April 6, 1943
    ...protection for its failure, if any there was, to make presentment of the debentures on November 15, 1938. Ansbacher v. New York Trust Co., 280 N.Y. 79, 19 N.E.2d 790; Benton v. Safe Deposit Co., 255 N.Y. 260-267, 174 N.E. 648; Greene v. Continental Bank & Trust Co. 267 N.Y. 519, 196 N.E. 55......
  • Hill v. Schantz
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • February 1, 1960
    ...upon the claim that the New Jersey Statutes of Limitations, which concededly was applicable (cf. Ansbacher v. New York Trust Co., 280 N.Y. 79, 85, 19 N.E.2d 790, 793; Civil Practice Act, § 13), was tolled under the provisions of the New Jersey statute (N.J.S.A. 2A:14-22), as respondent had ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
7 cases
  • Greenbie v. Noble
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • April 3, 1957
    ...Engineering Co. v. Universal Oil Products Co., D.C.S.D.N.Y., 1947, 79 F.Supp. 1013, 1020; Ansbacher v. New York Trust Company, 280 N.Y. 79, 19 N.E.2d 790; Oglesby v. Cranwell, 2d Dept., 1937, 250 App.Div. 720, 293 N.Y.S. In order to ascertain where the cause of action arose, it first become......
  • York v. Guaranty Trust Co. of New York, No. 256.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit
    • May 25, 1944
    ...the trustee was grossly negligent but that, on the facts before it, there was no showing of bad faith. In Ansbacher v. New York Trust Co., 280 N.Y. 79, 19 N. E.2d 790, the court held that, on the particular facts stated in the pleadings, the trustee was not guilty of gross negligence or bad......
  • Driscoll v. Fitch
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • April 6, 1943
    ...protection for its failure, if any there was, to make presentment of the debentures on November 15, 1938. Ansbacher v. New York Trust Co., 280 N.Y. 79, 19 N.E.2d 790; Benton v. Safe Deposit Co., 255 N.Y. 260-267, 174 N.E. 648; Greene v. Continental Bank & Trust Co. 267 N.Y. 519, 196 N.E. 55......
  • Hill v. Schantz
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • February 1, 1960
    ...upon the claim that the New Jersey Statutes of Limitations, which concededly was applicable (cf. Ansbacher v. New York Trust Co., 280 N.Y. 79, 85, 19 N.E.2d 790, 793; Civil Practice Act, § 13), was tolled under the provisions of the New Jersey statute (N.J.S.A. 2A:14-22), as respondent had ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT