Porterfield v. Payne

New York Supreme Court

Porterfield v. Payne

11 N.Y.S. 31, 32 N.Y. St. Rep. 1106, 57 Hun 591, 1890 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 586

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedJuly 18, 1890

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 11 N.Y.S. 31 (Porterfield v. Payne) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Porterfield v. Payne, 11 N.Y.S. 31, 32 N.Y. St. Rep. 1106, 57 Hun 591, 1890 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 586 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1890).

Pincite

Opinion

Dykman, J.

The defendant in this action entered into a written agreement with the plaintiff to sell and convey to him a piece of land in the city of Brooklyn, and the plaintiff paid to the defendant the sum of $1,500 on account of the purchase price of the land. Upon a claim that the title to the premises is defective and unmerchantable the plaintiff commenced this action for the recovery of the money he so paid to the defendant, and the defendant, in his answer, insisting upon the perfection of his title, demands a judgment for the specific performance of the contract. The action was tried before a judge without a jury, and he found that there were existing incumbrances upon the property, and that the defendant could not give a title thereto in compliance with the terms of the agreement; that the title was not merchantable; that the plaintiff should not be required to perform the contract of purchase, and should recover back from the defendant the money paid under the contract, together with $75 expenses incurred by him in the examination of the title to the property. Judgment has been entered upon such findings, from which the defendant has appealed. Our examination of the case leads ms to coincide with the findings and judgment of the special term. To say [32]*32the very least of the defendant’s title, it is doubtful as to a-part of the premises, and the doubt is sufficient to render it unmerchantable. The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

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

Dykman, J.

The defendant in this action entered into a written agreement with the plaintiff to sell and convey to him a piece of land in the city of Brooklyn, and the plaintiff paid to the defendant the sum of $1,500 on account of the purchase price of the land. Upon a claim that the title to the premises is defective and unmerchantable the plaintiff commenced this action for the recovery of the money he so paid to the defendant, and the defendant, in his answer, insisting upon the perfection of his title, demands a judgment for the specific performance of the contract. The action was tried before a judge without a jury, and he found that there were existing incumbrances upon the property, and that the defendant could not give a title thereto in compliance with the terms of the agreement; that the title was not merchantable; that the plaintiff should not be required to perform the contract of purchase, and should recover back from the defendant the money paid under the contract, together with $75 expenses incurred by him in the examination of the title to the property. Judgment has been entered upon such findings, from which the defendant has appealed. Our examination of the case leads ms to coincide with the findings and judgment of the special term. To say [32]*32the very least of the defendant’s title, it is doubtful as to a-part of the premises, and the doubt is sufficient to render it unmerchantable. The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

11 N.Y.S. 31, 32 N.Y. St. Rep. 1106, 57 Hun 591, 1890 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 586, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/porterfield-v-payne-nysupct-1890.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack