Bernhardt v. Kurz

New York Court of Common Pleas

Bernhardt v. Kurz

38 N.Y.S. 103, 2 N.Y. Ann. Cas. 112

CourtNew York Court of Common Pleas

DecidedAugust 27, 1895

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 38 N.Y.S. 103 (Bernhardt v. Kurz) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Common Pleas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bernhardt v. Kurz, 38 N.Y.S. 103, 2 N.Y. Ann. Cas. 112 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1895).

Pincite

Opinion

GIEGERICH, J.

The purchaser upon the partition sale objects to the title, and opposes the motion to compel him to complete his purchase upon the ground, among others, that the administratrix [104]*104of the goods, chattels, and credits of one John G. Kurz, who died intestate, seised of the real property in question, and the executor of the last will and testament of John A. Kurz, a son of said John G. Kurz, and who died subsequent to the death of the latter, were not made parties defendant. Section 1538 of the Code of Civil Procedure requires that “in a partition action the executors or administrators and creditors of a deceased person who, if living, should be a party to said action, must be made parties defendant.” This requirement as to the personal representatives of a deceased heir at law was not observed in the present áction, and hence the purchaser’s objection to taking title is tenable. A purchaser at a partition sale has a right to expect and demand a marketable title, and one free from a reasonable doubt as to its validity. Jordan v. Poillon, 77 N. Y. 518; Crouter v. Crouter, 133 N. Y. 55, 30 N. E. 726, and citations. And, as the title offered does not conform to these requirements, the purchaser should not be compelled to accept the same.

This result renders my consideration of the other objections raised unnecessary. Motion denied, but, as the precise question involved has not, to my knowledge, been heretofore passed upon, the denial should be without costs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

GIEGERICH, J.

The purchaser upon the partition sale objects to the title, and opposes the motion to compel him to complete his purchase upon the ground, among others, that the administratrix [104]*104of the goods, chattels, and credits of one John G. Kurz, who died intestate, seised of the real property in question, and the executor of the last will and testament of John A. Kurz, a son of said John G. Kurz, and who died subsequent to the death of the latter, were not made parties defendant. Section 1538 of the Code of Civil Procedure requires that “in a partition action the executors or administrators and creditors of a deceased person who, if living, should be a party to said action, must be made parties defendant.” This requirement as to the personal representatives of a deceased heir at law was not observed in the present áction, and hence the purchaser’s objection to taking title is tenable. A purchaser at a partition sale has a right to expect and demand a marketable title, and one free from a reasonable doubt as to its validity. Jordan v. Poillon, 77 N. Y. 518; Crouter v. Crouter, 133 N. Y. 55, 30 N. E. 726, and citations. And, as the title offered does not conform to these requirements, the purchaser should not be compelled to accept the same.

This result renders my consideration of the other objections raised unnecessary. Motion denied, but, as the precise question involved has not, to my knowledge, been heretofore passed upon, the denial should be without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

38 N.Y.S. 103, 2 N.Y. Ann. Cas. 112, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bernhardt-v-kurz-nyctcompl-1895.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack