Cooley v. Hearn

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cooley v. Hearn

243 A.D. 849

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

DecidedMarch 15, 1935

StatusPublished

This text of 243 A.D. 849 (Cooley v. Hearn) 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

Cooley v. Hearn, 243 A.D. 849 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

The action was commenced for specific performance of a land contract. The plaintiff moved for summary judgment under rule 113 of the Rules of Civil Practice, which motion was granted and from which this appeal was taken. The defendant claims that his answer and affidavits raise the question whether it was not the intent of the parties that the plaintiff’s action for damages and the liquidated damages provided by the contract was not plaintiff’s only remedy under the contract. Order and summary judgment reversed, on the law and facts, with costs, and plaintiff’s application for a summary judgment denied. (See Dealy v. Klapp, 199 App. Div. 150; Whipple v. Brown Brothers Co., 225 N. Y. 237.) Hill, P. J., Crapser and Heffernan, JJ., concur; Rhodes and Bliss, JJ., dissent, on the authority of Dealy v. Klapp (203 App. Div. 216; see, also, same case, 236 N. Y. 631.)

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

The action was commenced for specific performance of a land contract. The plaintiff moved for summary judgment under rule 113 of the Rules of Civil Practice, which motion was granted and from which this appeal was taken. The defendant claims that his answer and affidavits raise the question whether it was not the intent of the parties that the plaintiff’s action for damages and the liquidated damages provided by the contract was not plaintiff’s only remedy under the contract. Order and summary judgment reversed, on the law and facts, with costs, and plaintiff’s application for a summary judgment denied. (See Dealy v. Klapp, 199 App. Div. 150; Whipple v. Brown Brothers Co., 225 N. Y. 237.) Hill, P. J., Crapser and Heffernan, JJ., concur; Rhodes and Bliss, JJ., dissent, on the authority of Dealy v. Klapp (203 App. Div. 216; see, also, same case, 236 N. Y. 631.)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

243 A.D. 849, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cooley-v-hearn-nyappdiv-1935.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack