Hohauser v. Berwin

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Hohauser v. Berwin

125 Misc. 834, 211 N.Y.S. 580, 1925 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 975

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJuly 1, 1925

StatusPublished

This text of 125 Misc. 834 (Hohauser v. Berwin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hohauser v. Berwin, 125 Misc. 834, 211 N.Y.S. 580, 1925 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 975 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

Judgment and order unanimously reversed upon the law, with thirty dollars costs to appellant, and judgment directed for the defendant dismissing plaintiff’s complaint, with appropriate costs in the court below.

The paper which the parties signed was a full and complete contract. The fact that it provided that a more formal paper should be executed the following day did not make it any less binding and effective. (See Roberts v. Hoberg, 212 App. Div. 595.) It could have been enforced by either party. There was no proof to show that the agreement made by the parties was to be enforcible only when the more formal paper should have been executed. Concededly, the defendant did not refuse to carry out the terms of that paper, and, therefore, the plaintiff cannot recover the deposit she has paid.

Present: Cropsey, Lazansky and MacCrate, JJ,

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

Per Curiam:

Judgment and order unanimously reversed upon the law, with thirty dollars costs to appellant, and judgment directed for the defendant dismissing plaintiff’s complaint, with appropriate costs in the court below.

The paper which the parties signed was a full and complete contract. The fact that it provided that a more formal paper should be executed the following day did not make it any less binding and effective. (See Roberts v. Hoberg, 212 App. Div. 595.) It could have been enforced by either party. There was no proof to show that the agreement made by the parties was to be enforcible only when the more formal paper should have been executed. Concededly, the defendant did not refuse to carry out the terms of that paper, and, therefore, the plaintiff cannot recover the deposit she has paid.

Present: Cropsey, Lazansky and MacCrate, JJ,

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

125 Misc. 834, 211 N.Y.S. 580, 1925 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 975, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hohauser-v-berwin-nyappterm-1925.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack