Cadwell v. Robin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cadwell v. Robin

278 A.D. 586, 102 N.Y.S.2d 266, 1951 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4036

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJanuary 29, 1951

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 278 A.D. 586 (Cadwell v. Robin) 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

Cadwell v. Robin, 278 A.D. 586, 102 N.Y.S.2d 266, 1951 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4036 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1951).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for the alleged breach of a contract for the sale of real property, defendant appeals from an order which denies her motion for judgment on the pleadings, pursuant to rule 112 of the Rules of Civil Practice. Defendant contended that the note or memorandum of the contract in suit, consisting of a check to the order of one of the plaintiffs, signed by defendant, and having certain notations on its back, was insufficient to take the contract out of the operation of the Statute of Frauds. (Real Property Law, § 259.) Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. While it may be determined on a trial that the memorandum was not subscribed by the defendant (ef. James v. Patten, 6 N. Y. 9), or that it does not state all of the terms of the contract which the parties made (ef. Poel v. Brunswick-Bdlke-Collender Go., 216 N. Y. 310), those questions may not be decided on the pleadings alone. Nolan, P. J., Carswell, Johnston, Wenzel and MaeCrate, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for the alleged breach of a contract for the sale of real property, defendant appeals from an order which denies her motion for judgment on the pleadings, pursuant to rule 112 of the Rules of Civil Practice. Defendant contended that the note or memorandum of the contract in suit, consisting of a check to the order of one of the plaintiffs, signed by defendant, and having certain notations on its back, was insufficient to take the contract out of the operation of the Statute of Frauds. (Real Property Law, § 259.) Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. While it may be determined on a trial that the memorandum was not subscribed by the defendant (ef. James v. Patten, 6 N. Y. 9), or that it does not state all of the terms of the contract which the parties made (ef. Poel v. Brunswick-Bdlke-Collender Go., 216 N. Y. 310), those questions may not be decided on the pleadings alone. Nolan, P. J., Carswell, Johnston, Wenzel and MaeCrate, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

278 A.D. 586, 102 N.Y.S.2d 266, 1951 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4036, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cadwell-v-robin-nyappdiv-1951.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack