Osborne v. Osborne

26 Misc. 2d 821, 208 N.Y.S.2d 354, 1960 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2130
New York Supreme Court·Decided November 30, 1960·Published

Opinion

Mario Pittoni, J.

Motion for an order directing the plaintiff to return certain moneys is granted to the extent of directing the plaintiff to return the sum of $1,780 to Gloria Rosner.

Admittedly, the Referee could not convey marketable title. Admittedly, a discontinuance of the partition action was obtained without a confirmation of the sale or the obtaining of a final judgment directing the conveyance in accordance with the sale. Therefore, the Referee is without the power to complete the transaction. The sum deposited with him, which is now in the possession of the plaintiff, should be returned to the successful bidder at the sale. The court has the power to order the return of this sum since “ By becoming a purchaser at a judicial sale, the contract of purchase is in literal sense made with the court ” (Parish v. Parish, 87 App. Div. 430, 432). Thére was no contract between the plaintiff and the purchaser. Settle order on notice.

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

Osborne v. Osborne, 26 Misc. 2d 821, 208 N.Y.S.2d 354, 1960 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2130 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1960).

26 Misc. 2d 821 (Osborne v. Osborne) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Parish v. Parish
87 A.D. 430 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1903)