Hubbell v. Von Schoening

New York Supreme Court

Hubbell v. Von Schoening

58 Barb. 498, 1871 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18

DecidedFebruary 7, 1871

StatusPublished

This text of 58 Barb. 498 (Hubbell v. Von Schoening) 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

Hubbell v. Von Schoening, 58 Barb. 498, 1871 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1871).

Pincite

Opinion

By the Court, Cardozo, J.

It is well settled, in this State, that a court of equity will not disregard time, and decree a specific performance of a contract for the sale of real estate at the suit of a party in default, unless he not only applies promptly, but has a reasonable excuse for not performing on the contract day. In this case the defendants were at the place agreed on, for the purpose of passing the title, and waited the whole business day, ready to complete the sale, but the plaintiff was not ready on his part. There is no pretext of any fraud or deceit having been practiced upon him by the defendants, and the only excuse that he offers, viz., that the defendants’ attorney, when he applied for an extension of time to complete, told him that he thought there would be no difficulty about it, has been found not to be true, upon conflicting evidence, and we cannot disturb the judgment.

Judgment affirmed.

Cardozo and Geo. G. Barnard, Justices.]

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

By the Court, Cardozo, J.

It is well settled, in this State, that a court of equity will not disregard time, and decree a specific performance of a contract for the sale of real estate at the suit of a party in default, unless he not only applies promptly, but has a reasonable excuse for not performing on the contract day. In this case the defendants were at the place agreed on, for the purpose of passing the title, and waited the whole business day, ready to complete the sale, but the plaintiff was not ready on his part. There is no pretext of any fraud or deceit having been practiced upon him by the defendants, and the only excuse that he offers, viz., that the defendants’ attorney, when he applied for an extension of time to complete, told him that he thought there would be no difficulty about it, has been found not to be true, upon conflicting evidence, and we cannot disturb the judgment.

Judgment affirmed.

Cardozo and Geo. G. Barnard, Justices.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

58 Barb. 498, 1871 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hubbell-v-von-schoening-nysupct-1871.