Hedley v. Hedley

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hedley v. Hedley

24 A.D.2d 822, 264 N.Y.S.2d 207, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3254

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

DecidedOctober 21, 1965

StatusPublished

This text of 24 A.D.2d 822 (Hedley v. Hedley) 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

Hedley v. Hedley, 24 A.D.2d 822, 264 N.Y.S.2d 207, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3254 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously reversed on the law and the facts, with costs, and judgment granted plaintiff directing specific performance. Memorandum: The parties entered into a written agreement which was drafted without the aid of attorneys. Although the instrument contained some surplus language, the intention of the parties was sufficiently clear. By its terms appellant secured an option to purchase respondent’s interest in a copartnership, which option was, after various extensions of time, exercised by appellant’s acceptance. Respondent’s real reason for refusing to perform specifically by transferring his interest to appellant was his demand that appellant increase the consideration provided for in the option. The instrument was a valid contract to sell; appellant tendered the $5,000 consideration, and respondent therefore is obligated to transfer and assign his copartnership interest to appellant upon payment of that sum (see Silverstein v. Cerebral Palsy Assn., 17 A D 2d 160). (Appeal from judgment of Niagara Trial Term dismissing the complaint.) Present—Williams, P. J., Bastow, Goldman, Henry and Del Veechio, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously reversed on the law and the facts, with costs, and judgment granted plaintiff directing specific performance. Memorandum: The parties entered into a written agreement which was drafted without the aid of attorneys. Although the instrument contained some surplus language, the intention of the parties was sufficiently clear. By its terms appellant secured an option to purchase respondent’s interest in a copartnership, which option was, after various extensions of time, exercised by appellant’s acceptance. Respondent’s real reason for refusing to perform specifically by transferring his interest to appellant was his demand that appellant increase the consideration provided for in the option. The instrument was a valid contract to sell; appellant tendered the $5,000 consideration, and respondent therefore is obligated to transfer and assign his copartnership interest to appellant upon payment of that sum (see Silverstein v. Cerebral Palsy Assn., 17 A D 2d 160). (Appeal from judgment of Niagara Trial Term dismissing the complaint.) Present—Williams, P. J., Bastow, Goldman, Henry and Del Veechio, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

24 A.D.2d 822, 264 N.Y.S.2d 207, 1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3254, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hedley-v-hedley-nyappdiv-1965.