Geoffroy v. Schmidt
279 A.D. 912, 110 N.Y.S.2d 576, 1952 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5287
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 3, 1952·Published·Cited by 4 cases
Opinion
There was neither limitation of time nor expressed contingency which might terminate the agreement not to seek partition and it was, therefore, against public policy in that the power to alienate was suspended for an unreasonable time. (Haeussler v. Missouri Iron Co., 110 Mo. 188; Shelby v. Shelby, 192 Ky. 304; 68 C. J. S., Partition, § 44, pp. 67-68.) Johnston, Adel, Wenzel and MacCrate, JJ., concur; Carswell, Acting P. J., concurs in result. [See post, p. 1010.]
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Geoffroy v. Schmidt, 279 A.D. 912, 110 N.Y.S.2d 576, 1952 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5287 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1952).
279 A.D. 912 (Geoffroy v. Schmidt) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Leonardo v. Leonardo
297 A.D.2d 416 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Levy v. Herson
127 Misc. 2d 634 (New York Supreme Court, 1985)
Tramontano v. Catalano
23 A.D.2d 894 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1965)
Albin v. Albin
26 Misc. 2d 383 (New York Supreme Court, 1960)