Caledonia Holding Corp. v. Schneiderman

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Caledonia Holding Corp. v. Schneiderman

125 Misc. 177, 210 N.Y.S. 474, 1925 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 864

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJune 4, 1925

StatusPublished

This text of 125 Misc. 177 (Caledonia Holding Corp. v. Schneiderman) 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

Caledonia Holding Corp. v. Schneiderman, 125 Misc. 177, 210 N.Y.S. 474, 1925 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 864 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

Plaintiff seller sues for damages for the breach of a contract of sale of real property. On the fifth day of March the parties entered into a contract for the sale by plaintiff and the purchase by defendant of a brick apartment house in Brooklyn. The contract, while very concise, was complete as to details, and we are of the opinion that it was intended to be an enforcible agreement and not a “ mere receipt ” as is claimed by defendant.

This contract of the fifth of March provided “ formal contract to be signed and delivered March 6, 1924 * * *.” On that latter date the parties met and the plaintiff seller tendered a contract of sale upon a title company form which contained the provisions embodied in- the contract of March fifth and certain other provisions, none of which was objectionable to the defendant except the following clause: “ subject to any state of facts which a survey may show, made by Fred Thomas, City Surveyor, and exhibited to the purchaser and initialled by him this day.” Discussion over this clause brought out the fact that the survey which was referred to by that clause and which was in evidence showed that there was a stoop encroachment.

Had the objectionable clause not appeared in the contract of [178]*178sale, but in a deed tendered at the closing, it would not have entitled defendant to lawfully refuse the tender. (Broadbelt v. Loew, 15 App. Div. 343; affd., 162 N. Y. 642.) There can be no difference between the contract of sale and a deed in this respect. Moreover, in the instant case a modification was offered by the seller at this meeting. This modification, which was not accepted, was as testified, “ Why not take the property subject to a survey, and put in there, if it renders the title unmarketable you don’t have to take title.” Judgment reversed and a new trial ordered, with thirty dollars costs to appellant to abide the event.

All concur; present, Bijur, McGoldrick and Levy, JJ.

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

Per Curiam:

Plaintiff seller sues for damages for the breach of a contract of sale of real property. On the fifth day of March the parties entered into a contract for the sale by plaintiff and the purchase by defendant of a brick apartment house in Brooklyn. The contract, while very concise, was complete as to details, and we are of the opinion that it was intended to be an enforcible agreement and not a “ mere receipt ” as is claimed by defendant.

This contract of the fifth of March provided “ formal contract to be signed and delivered March 6, 1924 * * *.” On that latter date the parties met and the plaintiff seller tendered a contract of sale upon a title company form which contained the provisions embodied in- the contract of March fifth and certain other provisions, none of which was objectionable to the defendant except the following clause: “ subject to any state of facts which a survey may show, made by Fred Thomas, City Surveyor, and exhibited to the purchaser and initialled by him this day.” Discussion over this clause brought out the fact that the survey which was referred to by that clause and which was in evidence showed that there was a stoop encroachment.

Had the objectionable clause not appeared in the contract of [178]*178sale, but in a deed tendered at the closing, it would not have entitled defendant to lawfully refuse the tender. (Broadbelt v. Loew, 15 App. Div. 343; affd., 162 N. Y. 642.) There can be no difference between the contract of sale and a deed in this respect. Moreover, in the instant case a modification was offered by the seller at this meeting. This modification, which was not accepted, was as testified, “ Why not take the property subject to a survey, and put in there, if it renders the title unmarketable you don’t have to take title.” Judgment reversed and a new trial ordered, with thirty dollars costs to appellant to abide the event.

All concur; present, Bijur, McGoldrick and Levy, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

125 Misc. 177, 210 N.Y.S. 474, 1925 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 864, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/caledonia-holding-corp-v-schneiderman-nyappterm-1925.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack