Duffield v. Montauk Realty Security Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Duffield v. Montauk Realty Security Co.

228 A.D. 846

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

DecidedMarch 15, 1930

StatusPublished

This text of 228 A.D. 846 (Duffield v. Montauk Realty Security Co.) 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

Duffield v. Montauk Realty Security Co., 228 A.D. 846 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

Order denying defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. No opinion. Lazansky, P. J., and Kapper, J., concur; Hagarty, J., concurs upon the ground that the complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a common-law cause of action for damages for breach of contract; Rich and Scudder, JJ., dissent and vote for reversal, with the following memorandum: The complaint alleges a cause of action in equity for specific performance. Without allegations to the effect that the stock has any peculiar value, or that the computation of its value is difficult [847]*847or impossible and that plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law, “ equity would not ** * * exercise its discretion to award specific performance of the agreement set out in the complaint, and without such averments, the pleading cannot be said to state a cause of action in equity for specific performance.” (Bateman v. Straus, 86 App. Div. 540, 544; Kennedy v. Thompson, 97 id. 296.)

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

Order denying defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. No opinion. Lazansky, P. J., and Kapper, J., concur; Hagarty, J., concurs upon the ground that the complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a common-law cause of action for damages for breach of contract; Rich and Scudder, JJ., dissent and vote for reversal, with the following memorandum: The complaint alleges a cause of action in equity for specific performance. Without allegations to the effect that the stock has any peculiar value, or that the computation of its value is difficult [847]*847or impossible and that plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law, “ equity would not ** * * exercise its discretion to award specific performance of the agreement set out in the complaint, and without such averments, the pleading cannot be said to state a cause of action in equity for specific performance.” (Bateman v. Straus, 86 App. Div. 540, 544; Kennedy v. Thompson, 97 id. 296.)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

228 A.D. 846, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/duffield-v-montauk-realty-security-co-nyappdiv-1930.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack