Oppenheimer v. Thomas

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Oppenheimer v. Thomas

258 A.D. 827, 15 N.Y.S.2d 179, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7124

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

DecidedNovember 1, 1939

StatusPublished

This text of 258 A.D. 827 (Oppenheimer v. Thomas) 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

Oppenheimer v. Thomas, 258 A.D. 827, 15 N.Y.S.2d 179, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7124 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

This action was brought to compel the specific performance of a contract whereby defendants had agreed to exchange certain real estate and personal property located in Columbia county, New Y ork, for certain real property owned by plaintiff s and located in Germany. While the answer contains many alleged defenses only two require consideration. Defendants contend that plaintiffs are not able to convey a marketable title and that they failed to transfer a good title on or before March 1,1938, the date mentioned in the contract for performance. The trial judge found that plaintiffs could convey a good title and that time was not the essence of the contract and directed judgment in favor of plaintiffs. The proof sustains the findings of the trial court. Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. Present — Hill, P. J., Bliss, Heffernan, Sehenck and Posta1, JJ.

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

This action was brought to compel the specific performance of a contract whereby defendants had agreed to exchange certain real estate and personal property located in Columbia county, New Y ork, for certain real property owned by plaintiff s and located in Germany. While the answer contains many alleged defenses only two require consideration. Defendants contend that plaintiffs are not able to convey a marketable title and that they failed to transfer a good title on or before March 1,1938, the date mentioned in the contract for performance. The trial judge found that plaintiffs could convey a good title and that time was not the essence of the contract and directed judgment in favor of plaintiffs. The proof sustains the findings of the trial court. Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. Present — Hill, P. J., Bliss, Heffernan, Sehenck and Posta1, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

258 A.D. 827, 15 N.Y.S.2d 179, 1939 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7124, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oppenheimer-v-thomas-nyappdiv-1939.