Dennerlein v. Dennerlein

New York Supreme Court

Dennerlein v. Dennerlein

14 N.Y. St. Rep. 932

DecidedFebruary 13, 1888

StatusPublished

This text of 14 N.Y. St. Rep. 932 (Dennerlein v. Dennerlein) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Dennerlein v. Dennerlein, 14 N.Y. St. Rep. 932 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1888).

Pincite

Opinion

Barnard, P. J.

The decision upon the appeal, pending when the appeal was brought, controls the same. The premises described in the complaint were sold at public auction under a decree in partition, and were bought by the appellant. The quantity fell short of the estimate of what was contained in the metes and bounds. The property was sold by the piece and not by the quantity. This was decided upon the former appeal which was taken from an order refusing to release the purchasers. The present order follows that of necessity, and when it is decided that the appellant was bound to take the title a resale was proper, as there was and is no dispute as to the fact that the purchaser refused to take the title.

The order should, therefore, be affirmed, with costs and disbursements.

Pratt, J., concurs; Dykman, J., not sitting.

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

Barnard, P. J.

The decision upon the appeal, pending when the appeal was brought, controls the same. The premises described in the complaint were sold at public auction under a decree in partition, and were bought by the appellant. The quantity fell short of the estimate of what was contained in the metes and bounds. The property was sold by the piece and not by the quantity. This was decided upon the former appeal which was taken from an order refusing to release the purchasers. The present order follows that of necessity, and when it is decided that the appellant was bound to take the title a resale was proper, as there was and is no dispute as to the fact that the purchaser refused to take the title.

The order should, therefore, be affirmed, with costs and disbursements.

Pratt, J., concurs; Dykman, J., not sitting.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

14 N.Y. St. Rep. 932, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dennerlein-v-dennerlein-nysupct-1888.