Josol Garage Corp. v. Mindor Development Corp.

225 A.D. 811

This text of 225 A.D. 811 (Josol Garage Corp. v. Mindor Development Corp.) 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
Josol Garage Corp. v. Mindor Development Corp., 225 A.D. 811 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1929).

Opinion

Order denying motion to dismiss complaint as against defendant Ray Reed affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Rich, Young and Seeger, JJ., concur; Lazansky, P. J., and Kapper, J., dissent, being of opinion that the rights of this defendant [812]*812do not come within the purview of sections 1017 and 1021 of the Civil Practice Act, and that section 1053 applies only to the dower mentioned in section 1017. A wife’s inchoate right of dower in the entire property cannot be admeasured against her will. She has the right to await the period of survivorship as between herself and her husband and the possibly enhanced value of the property at that time. To compel her to accept a sum equivalent to present value of an inchoate right, necessarily much less than a consummate right, finds no statutory support. Clifford v. Kampfe (147 N. Y. 383, 385) points out the protection afforded by the law to an inchoate right of dower.

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

Related

Clifford v. . Kampfe
42 N.E. 1 (New York Court of Appeals, 1895)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
225 A.D. 811, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/josol-garage-corp-v-mindor-development-corp-nyappdiv-1929.