Constant v. University of Rochester
New York Court of Appeals
19 N.E. 631 (1889)
Facts
Over the course of many years, and as frequently as weekly or even daily, Mary Constant (plaintiff) conducted real estate transactions through a lawyer named Deane. In one such transaction, a woman named Elizabeth Meehan mortgaged her property to Constant. Deane failed to record the mortgage. Eleven months later, Meehan mortgaged the same property to the University of Rochester (university) (defendant). Deane represented the university in this transaction, and this time he recorded the mortgage. Deane later found Meehan’s first mortgage mistakenly pigeonholed in a file of satisfied mortgages. Constant sought to foreclose on Meehan’s property and sued the university upon learning that the university held title to the same property. The trial court found that Deane retained knowledge of Meehan’s first mortgage at the time Deane took Meehan’s second mortgage. Therefore, the trial court imputed that knowledge to the university and entered judgment for Constant. The university appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Peckham, J.)
Dissent (Gray, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 710,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 44,600 briefs, keyed to 983 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
