Bernzweig v. Zwisohn

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Bernzweig v. Zwisohn

91 N.Y.S. 736

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJanuary 17, 1905

StatusPublished

This text of 91 N.Y.S. 736 (Bernzweig v. Zwisohn) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bernzweig v. Zwisohn, 91 N.Y.S. 736 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1905).

Pincite

Opinion

MacLEAN, J.

On May 2, 1904, the plaintiff and the defendant subscribed the following writing:

“This agreement is made between Esther Zwisohn of New York, and Pauline Bernzweig, of New York. The party of the .first part sells the property, 334 East 78th St. to the party of the second part for the sum of Eight thousand and one hundred and fifty doll. ($8,150.00). A deposit of One hundred doll, by check, and the balance of One thousand and fifty Doll, to be paid on taking title within thirty days. The party of the first part agrees to take a bond and mortgage of the second part on the property for the sum of $2000. Two thousand Doll., at the rate of 6% per annum.”

Thereafter plaintiff sought recovery of the sum deposited, and evidence pro and con that the writing was tentative to a later agreement, to be executed, was received. Whether or no a later agreement was to be signed by the parties is quite immaterial. The writing mutually subscribed being an agreement binding upon both parties, recites a sale, sufficiently including a declaration of purchase (Butler v. Thomson, 92 U. S. 412, 23 L. Ed. 684), and so [737]*737testified the plaintiff upon the trial that she bought the house. The right to recover back her deposit pends upon the refusal of the defendant to complete, and this was not shown. The cause must therefore be retried.

Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event. All concur.

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

MacLEAN, J.

On May 2, 1904, the plaintiff and the defendant subscribed the following writing:

“This agreement is made between Esther Zwisohn of New York, and Pauline Bernzweig, of New York. The party of the .first part sells the property, 334 East 78th St. to the party of the second part for the sum of Eight thousand and one hundred and fifty doll. ($8,150.00). A deposit of One hundred doll, by check, and the balance of One thousand and fifty Doll, to be paid on taking title within thirty days. The party of the first part agrees to take a bond and mortgage of the second part on the property for the sum of $2000. Two thousand Doll., at the rate of 6% per annum.”

Thereafter plaintiff sought recovery of the sum deposited, and evidence pro and con that the writing was tentative to a later agreement, to be executed, was received. Whether or no a later agreement was to be signed by the parties is quite immaterial. The writing mutually subscribed being an agreement binding upon both parties, recites a sale, sufficiently including a declaration of purchase (Butler v. Thomson, 92 U. S. 412, 23 L. Ed. 684), and so [737]*737testified the plaintiff upon the trial that she bought the house. The right to recover back her deposit pends upon the refusal of the defendant to complete, and this was not shown. The cause must therefore be retried.

Judgment reversed, and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

91 N.Y.S. 736, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bernzweig-v-zwisohn-nyappterm-1905.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack