Myrtle Realty Co. v. Kalter

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Myrtle Realty Co. v. Kalter

131 A.D. 281, 115 N.Y.S. 694, 1909 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 794

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

DecidedMarch 12, 1909

StatusPublished

This text of 131 A.D. 281 (Myrtle Realty Co. v. Kalter) 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

Myrtle Realty Co. v. Kalter, 131 A.D. 281, 115 N.Y.S. 694, 1909 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 794 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1909).

Pincite

Opinion

Gaynor, J.:

The plaintiff tendered a deed containing the description contained in the contract, except that it omitted therefrom the words at the [282]*282.end thereof, “ being known as Lots 14 and 15 in Block 3 on map of property belonging to the Myrtle Realty Company at Ridgewood and refused to put them in. The defendant refused to accept the said deed. These words are in common use out of reasonable caution and sometimes serve a material purpose. Without mentioning anything else, the street corner point, for instance^ from which the starting point.is declared in the description to be 100 feet distant, may be different on the map to that apparently established by physical appearances, or established by mistake by the surveyor. If such an error should develop, and- a controversy about a boundary-line arise, it might be useful for the defendant to have the description in his deed contain the number of the lots intended to be conveyed. ' It should not be decided now that the reference to the lot numbers can never be of advantage to the defendant. We should •not try to foresee what may happen or be discovered in the future. The defendant is entitled to have these precautionary and proper words- of description in his deed, for such is his contract. The case of Moser v. Cochrane (107 N. Y. 35) is not in point. There the boundaries on each side of the lot were in terms the walls of other houses, so that a mistake or dispute was impossible.

The judgment should be affirmed.

Woodward, Jenks, Rich and Miller, JJ., concurred.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

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

Gaynor, J.:

The plaintiff tendered a deed containing the description contained in the contract, except that it omitted therefrom the words at the [282]*282.end thereof, “ being known as Lots 14 and 15 in Block 3 on map of property belonging to the Myrtle Realty Company at Ridgewood and refused to put them in. The defendant refused to accept the said deed. These words are in common use out of reasonable caution and sometimes serve a material purpose. Without mentioning anything else, the street corner point, for instance^ from which the starting point.is declared in the description to be 100 feet distant, may be different on the map to that apparently established by physical appearances, or established by mistake by the surveyor. If such an error should develop, and- a controversy about a boundary-line arise, it might be useful for the defendant to have the description in his deed contain the number of the lots intended to be conveyed. ' It should not be decided now that the reference to the lot numbers can never be of advantage to the defendant. We should •not try to foresee what may happen or be discovered in the future. The defendant is entitled to have these precautionary and proper words- of description in his deed, for such is his contract. The case of Moser v. Cochrane (107 N. Y. 35) is not in point. There the boundaries on each side of the lot were in terms the walls of other houses, so that a mistake or dispute was impossible.

The judgment should be affirmed.

Woodward, Jenks, Rich and Miller, JJ., concurred.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

131 A.D. 281, 115 N.Y.S. 694, 1909 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 794, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/myrtle-realty-co-v-kalter-nyappdiv-1909.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack