Boulware v. Roosje

246 A.D. 726

This text of 246 A.D. 726 (Boulware v. Roosje) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Boulware v. Roosje, 246 A.D. 726 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1935).

Opinion

The action is to recover the past due installments under a contract for the sale of real property between plaintiff’s assignor as vendor and the defendant as vendee. Judgment of the County Court of Orange county in favor of plaintiff unanimously affirmed, with costs. The action to enforce collection of these past due installments was instituted prior to the law day fixed in the contract. The covenants of the parties were independent and, therefore, the want of title in the vendor at the time the action was instituted was not a bar to such an action. A different rule would apply if the action were not begun until after the law day; then the independent covenants would become dependent. But that is not the situation here. (McNeil v. Goldstein, 237 App. Div. 129, 131; Martin v. Bauer, 138 id. 57; Harrington v. Higgins, 17 Wend. 376; Robb v. Montgomery, 20 Johns. 15.) Present— Lazansky, P. J., Carswell, Tompkins, Davis and Johnston, JJ.

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

Related

McNeil v. Goldstein
237 A.D. 129 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1932)
Robb v. Montgomery
20 Johns. 15 (New York Supreme Court, 1822)
Harrington v. Higgins
17 Wend. 376 (New York Supreme Court, 1837)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
246 A.D. 726, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/boulware-v-roosje-nyappdiv-1935.