Roth v. Hirschman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Roth v. Hirschman

233 A.D. 685

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

DecidedApril 15, 1931

StatusPublished

This text of 233 A.D. 685 (Roth v. Hirschman) 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

Roth v. Hirschman, 233 A.D. 685 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment reversed upon the law and the facts, with costs, and judgment granted in plaintiff’s favor for $1,500, with interest and costs. The intention of the parties, as expressed in the contract, was that “ the seller shall convey all he owns of the property.” Lot No. 129, as shown on the sketch map, and lot No. 130, shown on the Bradford map, were intended to be the same lot. This lot was part of the entire tract owned by defendant, and under the contract should have been conveyed to plaintiff. Plaintiff paid the full consideration called for by the contract, viz., 129 times “ $1,500 for each of said numbered lots ” as shown by the sketch map, which included said lot No. 129, otherwise lot No. 130. Not having received a deed of said lot, plaintiff is entitled to credit therefor at the stipulated price per lot. Findings of fact and conclusions of law inconsistent herewith are reversed and new findings and conclusions will be made. Lazansky, P. J., Young, Hagarty, Scudder and Tompkins, JJ., concur. Settle order on notice.

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

Judgment reversed upon the law and the facts, with costs, and judgment granted in plaintiff’s favor for $1,500, with interest and costs. The intention of the parties, as expressed in the contract, was that “ the seller shall convey all he owns of the property.” Lot No. 129, as shown on the sketch map, and lot No. 130, shown on the Bradford map, were intended to be the same lot. This lot was part of the entire tract owned by defendant, and under the contract should have been conveyed to plaintiff. Plaintiff paid the full consideration called for by the contract, viz., 129 times “ $1,500 for each of said numbered lots ” as shown by the sketch map, which included said lot No. 129, otherwise lot No. 130. Not having received a deed of said lot, plaintiff is entitled to credit therefor at the stipulated price per lot. Findings of fact and conclusions of law inconsistent herewith are reversed and new findings and conclusions will be made. Lazansky, P. J., Young, Hagarty, Scudder and Tompkins, JJ., concur. Settle order on notice.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

233 A.D. 685, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roth-v-hirschman-nyappdiv-1931.