Marsh v. Marsh

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Marsh v. Marsh

222 A.D. 825

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

DecidedJanuary 15, 1928

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 222 A.D. 825 (Marsh v. Marsh) 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

Marsh v. Marsh, 222 A.D. 825 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1928).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment reversed upon the law and the facts, with costs, and complaint dismissed, with costs. The consideration of each alleged oral agreement is too indefinite to sustain such an agreement. The acts relied upon as part performance are insufficient to take the alleged oral agreements out of the Statute of Frauds. They are not unequivoeably referable to the oral agreements. The husband’s marital duty explains them, they being a performance of the husband’s duty to furnish a habitation for which in other circumstances he necessarily would pay rent, and which habitation the husband was obligated to furnish the wife. (Cooley v. Lobdell, 153 N. Y. 596; Woolley v. Stewart, 222 id. 347; Burns v. McCormick, 233 id. 230.) Findings of fact and conclusions of law inconsistent with this memorandum are reversed, and new findings will be made in accordance herewith. Lazansky, P. J., Rich, Kapper, Seeger and Carswell, JJ., concur. Settle order on notice.

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

Judgment reversed upon the law and the facts, with costs, and complaint dismissed, with costs. The consideration of each alleged oral agreement is too indefinite to sustain such an agreement. The acts relied upon as part performance are insufficient to take the alleged oral agreements out of the Statute of Frauds. They are not unequivoeably referable to the oral agreements. The husband’s marital duty explains them, they being a performance of the husband’s duty to furnish a habitation for which in other circumstances he necessarily would pay rent, and which habitation the husband was obligated to furnish the wife. (Cooley v. Lobdell, 153 N. Y. 596; Woolley v. Stewart, 222 id. 347; Burns v. McCormick, 233 id. 230.) Findings of fact and conclusions of law inconsistent with this memorandum are reversed, and new findings will be made in accordance herewith. Lazansky, P. J., Rich, Kapper, Seeger and Carswell, JJ., concur. Settle order on notice.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

222 A.D. 825, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marsh-v-marsh-nyappdiv-1928.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack