Calkins v. Becker

New York Court of Appeals

Calkins v. Becker

34 N.E.2d 483, 285 N.Y. 408, 1941 N.Y. LEXIS 1493

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 22, 1941

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 34 N.E.2d 483 (Calkins v. Becker) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Calkins v. Becker, 34 N.E.2d 483, 285 N.Y. 408, 1941 N.Y. LEXIS 1493 (N.Y. 1941).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Special Term found as a fact that there was no delivery whatever of either of the instruments in question by the plaintiff to the defendant Rogers. These findings were affirmed by the Appellate Division. Hence there is no support for that court’s conclusion, “ That in so far as the twenty acre parcel is concerned plaintiff waived any condition imposed upon delivery of the contract by accepting the proceeds of the check of $324.00 as part of the purchase price after the time for performance of the condition had expired.”

The judgment of the Appellate Division should be reversed and that of the Special Term affirmed, with costs to plaintiff-appellant in this court and in the Appellate Division.

Lehman, Ch. J., Loughran, Finch, Rippey, Lewis, Conway and Desmond, JJ., concur.

Judgment accordingly.

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

Per Curiam.

Special Term found as a fact that there was no delivery whatever of either of the instruments in question by the plaintiff to the defendant Rogers. These findings were affirmed by the Appellate Division. Hence there is no support for that court’s conclusion, “ That in so far as the twenty acre parcel is concerned plaintiff waived any condition imposed upon delivery of the contract by accepting the proceeds of the check of $324.00 as part of the purchase price after the time for performance of the condition had expired.”

The judgment of the Appellate Division should be reversed and that of the Special Term affirmed, with costs to plaintiff-appellant in this court and in the Appellate Division.

Lehman, Ch. J., Loughran, Finch, Rippey, Lewis, Conway and Desmond, JJ., concur.

Judgment accordingly.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

34 N.E.2d 483, 285 N.Y. 408, 1941 N.Y. LEXIS 1493, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/calkins-v-becker-ny-1941.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack