Roberts v. Fulmer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Roberts v. Fulmer

275 A.D.2d 990

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

DecidedJune 24, 1949

StatusPublished

This text of 275 A.D.2d 990 (Roberts v. Fulmer) 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

Roberts v. Fulmer, 275 A.D.2d 990 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1949).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum: On the record before us, we feel that specific performance must be denied. The evidence in our opinion discloses that the oral agreement between the parties created the relationship of tenant and owner rather than that of seller and purchaser. Where specific performance of an oral agreement to convey real property is sought, the acts of the parties must be 11 unequivocal in their character and must have reference to the carrying out of the agreement. An act which admits of explanation without reference to the alleged oral contract * * * is not, in general, admitted to constitute a part performance ”. (Wooley v. Stewart, 222 N. Y. 347, 351; see, also, Burns v. McCormick, 233 N. Y. 230; Neverman v. Neverman, 254 N. Y. 496.) All concur. (The judgment is for plaintiffs in an action to compel defendants to specifically perform an oral contract for the sale of a farm and dairy to plaintiffs.) Present — Taylor, P. J., MeCurn, Vaughan, Kimball and Piper, JJ.

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

Memorandum: On the record before us, we feel that specific performance must be denied. The evidence in our opinion discloses that the oral agreement between the parties created the relationship of tenant and owner rather than that of seller and purchaser. Where specific performance of an oral agreement to convey real property is sought, the acts of the parties must be 11 unequivocal in their character and must have reference to the carrying out of the agreement. An act which admits of explanation without reference to the alleged oral contract * * * is not, in general, admitted to constitute a part performance ”. (Wooley v. Stewart, 222 N. Y. 347, 351; see, also, Burns v. McCormick, 233 N. Y. 230; Neverman v. Neverman, 254 N. Y. 496.) All concur. (The judgment is for plaintiffs in an action to compel defendants to specifically perform an oral contract for the sale of a farm and dairy to plaintiffs.) Present — Taylor, P. J., MeCurn, Vaughan, Kimball and Piper, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

275 A.D.2d 990, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roberts-v-fulmer-nyappdiv-1949.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack