Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1906

Pelletreau v. Brennan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided June 15, 1906 · Gaynor

113 A.D. 806; 99 N.Y.S. 955; 1906 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1550

Counsel

Edward J. McCrossin, for the appellant., Hugo Hirsh, for the respondents.

Cases that cite this one

13 later published cases cite this decision.

Eisenberg v. Spachmann (New York Supreme Court 1921)
Korn v. Birnn (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York 1913)
Burns v. Witter (Or. 1910)
Tymon v. Linoki (N.Y. 1965)
Zirman v. Beck (New York Supreme Court 1962)
Dweck v. Altman (New York Supreme Court 1960)
Bambace v. Bachrach (New York Supreme Court 1959)
Sautkulis v. Conklin (New York Supreme Court 1955)
Johnson v. Edmunds (New York Supreme Court 1950)
300 West End Avenue Corp. v. Warner (N.Y. 1929)
Diamond v. Talbot (New York Supreme Court 1924)
Gendelman v. Mongillo (Conn. 1921)
Brune v. Vom Lehn (New York Supreme Court 1920)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Gaynor, J.:

The judgment has to be reversed. The findings of fact and conelusions of law are that the contract expresses no consideration, and is so vague and indefinite that a judgment of specific performance cannot be given upon it. The contract contains every essential, i. e., it gives the names of the seller and the buyer, expresses the consideration and describes the land to be conveyed by the defendants. The description, “Clinton and Joralemon street,” suffices, for it enables the land to be identified and fully described by evidence dehors (Waring v. Ayres, 40 N. Y. 357 ; Miller v. Tuck, 95 App. Div. 134 ; Levin v. Dietz, 106 id. 208) ; and such evidence was given. As the parties were dealing in the city of Flew York, the legal inference is that the contract refers to land there. That the land to he conveyed by the plaintiff as part consideration is not identified by the contract does not matter; it is only the seller who can raise the question of no written contract (Torres v. Thompson, 29 Misc. Rep. 526) ; and the plaintiff tendered performance. That the contract provides for the execution of a more formal contract "does not detract from it; it is enforcible (Pratt v. Hudson River R. R. Co., 21 N. Y. 305 ; Sanders v. Pottlitzer Bros. Fruit Co., 144 id. 209). The writing not being sealed, the action can be main*808tained by and against, ¡the-principals, for whom their agents signed, although the latter-signed--by- ¡their own names only (Briggs v. Partridge,. 64 N. Y. 357).

The jndgment. should be reversed.

Jenks and Hooker, JJ., concurred ; Rich and Miller, JJ., dissented

Jndgment reversed and new trial granted, costs to abide the event,'. ... ¡:. „ ; i- - ., ¡,

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.