Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Philip H. Hover, Respondent, v. Martha Hover, Respondent; Daniel G. Bogert et al., as Executors and Trustees of Louisa M. Bogert, Deceased, Appellants, 1898 — 155 N.Y. 666 · caselaw · US
General
Philip H. Hover, Respondent, v. Martha Hover, Respondent; Daniel G. Bogert et al., as Executors and Trustees of Louisa M. Bogert, Deceased, Appellants
155 N.Y. 666·New York Court of Appeals·1898·NY
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
Philip H. Hover, Respondent, v. Martha Hover, Respondent; Daniel G. Bogert et al., as Executors and Trustees of Louisa M. Bogert, Deceased, Appellants.
Hover v. Hover, 21 App. Div. 565, affirmed.
(Argued March 2, 1898;
decided March 22, 1898.)
Appeal, by certification, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered November 10, 1891, affirming an order of Special Term denying a motion for an order requiring plaintiff to "assign to defendants a bond and mortgage.
The questions certified were as follows:
I. Is either the plaintiff or the defendant Martha Hover entitled to urge, in opposition to the application of'the defendants Bogert and Pope, as executors, etc., for subrogation to the plaintiff’s rights under the mortgage, the equities of Martha Hover ? If the question be answered affirmatively :
II. Are the equities of the defendant Martha Hover such as to justify the court in denying the application of the defendants Bogert and Pope for subrogation to the plaintiff’s rights under the mortgage ?
De Witt Bailey for appellants.
Lyman B. Bunnell for plaintiff-respondent.
Alfred R. Bunnell for defendant-respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Order affirmed, with costs,' on opinion below, and the questions certified answered in the affirmative.
All concur, except Gray, JT., absent.