Miller v. Cooper

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Miller v. Cooper

144 Misc. 209, 258 N.Y.S. 489, 1932 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1467

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJune 30, 1932

StatusPublished

This text of 144 Misc. 209 (Miller v. Cooper) 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

Miller v. Cooper, 144 Misc. 209, 258 N.Y.S. 489, 1932 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1467 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1932).

Pincite

Opinions

Per Curiam.

As we construe the escrow agreement, in the light of the circumstances, defendant was required to hold the $1,000 pending the closing of title; if title was not closed because of any act or default on plaintiff’s part, defendant would be warranted in paying the money to the vendor or for her benefit; but if the vendor was unable to convey in accordance with the stipulations of the contract, and plaintiff refused to close on that ground, defendant was required to return the amount to the plaintiff. In this view the trial judge erred in refusing to allow plaintiff to show the vendor’s default in performance of her contract.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event.

Levy and Frankenthaler, JJ., concur.

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

Per Curiam.

As we construe the escrow agreement, in the light of the circumstances, defendant was required to hold the $1,000 pending the closing of title; if title was not closed because of any act or default on plaintiff’s part, defendant would be warranted in paying the money to the vendor or for her benefit; but if the vendor was unable to convey in accordance with the stipulations of the contract, and plaintiff refused to close on that ground, defendant was required to return the amount to the plaintiff. In this view the trial judge erred in refusing to allow plaintiff to show the vendor’s default in performance of her contract.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide the event.

Levy and Frankenthaler, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

144 Misc. 209, 258 N.Y.S. 489, 1932 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1467, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miller-v-cooper-nyappterm-1932.