Haussauer v. Young

New York Supreme Court

Haussauer v. Young

20 N.Y.S. 339, 48 N.Y. St. Rep. 96

DecidedOctober 21, 1892

StatusPublished

This text of 20 N.Y.S. 339 (Haussauer v. Young) 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

Haussauer v. Young, 20 N.Y.S. 339, 48 N.Y. St. Rep. 96 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1892).

Pincite

Opinion

Macomber, J.

This action was brought to recover a balance of the consideration price of one fourth of the lands described in the complaint, being the plaintiff’s share coming to her under her father’s will, which she had conveyed to the defendant. The consideration which the defendant agreed to pay was $3,500. Fifteen hundred dollars thereof the plaintiff admitted had been paid to her. This case was tried at the same time with the case of Haussauer v. Terry, 20 N. Y. Supp. 337, (decided at the present term,) and does not differ from the latter in any particular except in the names of the parties,^ and the description of the property, and the amount of the mortgage, which, in this instance, was $4,000, save that the deed appearing in this case, though containing a clause to the effect that the premises were conveyed subject to the mortgage executed by the executor of George W. Terry, deceased, of whom the plaintiff is a daughter and an heir at law, does not contain the affirmative personal assumption of the indebtedness by the defendant, as was done in the case of Haussauer v. Terry. But this is an unimportant distinction, because this defendant has actually caused to be discharged the entire mortgage lien, thereby discharging and paying a lien to the amount of $1,500 resting upon the lands conveyed by the plaintiff to him. It therefore appears clear in this case, as well as in the other, that the defendant had paid and discharged the entire consideration for the purchase of the plaintiff’s interest in the land; and hence it follows that this action, as well as the other, cannot be maintained.

Judgment appealed from affirmed. All concur.

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

Macomber, J.

This action was brought to recover a balance of the consideration price of one fourth of the lands described in the complaint, being the plaintiff’s share coming to her under her father’s will, which she had conveyed to the defendant. The consideration which the defendant agreed to pay was $3,500. Fifteen hundred dollars thereof the plaintiff admitted had been paid to her. This case was tried at the same time with the case of Haussauer v. Terry, 20 N. Y. Supp. 337, (decided at the present term,) and does not differ from the latter in any particular except in the names of the parties,^ and the description of the property, and the amount of the mortgage, which, in this instance, was $4,000, save that the deed appearing in this case, though containing a clause to the effect that the premises were conveyed subject to the mortgage executed by the executor of George W. Terry, deceased, of whom the plaintiff is a daughter and an heir at law, does not contain the affirmative personal assumption of the indebtedness by the defendant, as was done in the case of Haussauer v. Terry. But this is an unimportant distinction, because this defendant has actually caused to be discharged the entire mortgage lien, thereby discharging and paying a lien to the amount of $1,500 resting upon the lands conveyed by the plaintiff to him. It therefore appears clear in this case, as well as in the other, that the defendant had paid and discharged the entire consideration for the purchase of the plaintiff’s interest in the land; and hence it follows that this action, as well as the other, cannot be maintained.

Judgment appealed from affirmed. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

20 N.Y.S. 339, 48 N.Y. St. Rep. 96, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/haussauer-v-young-nysupct-1892.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack