Rowe v. Hollis Holding Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rowe v. Hollis Holding Corp.

235 A.D. 747

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

DecidedMarch 15, 1932

StatusPublished

This text of 235 A.D. 747 (Rowe v. Hollis Holding Corp.) 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

Rowe v. Hollis Holding Corp., 235 A.D. 747 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment modified by striking out the decretal portions thereof and substituting in place thereof a provision for the recovery by plaintiff from the defendants of the sum of $1,000, with interest and costs, and as so modified unanimously affirmed, with costs to respondent. Finding of fact 12 and proposed findings of the defendants found by the trial court numbered 7, 8 and 10 are reversed as contrary to the evidence. Conclusion of law 3, and also 4 so far as it finds that plaintiff is entitled to a hen on the premises in question and directs a sale thereof, are reversed. As the plaintiff elected to rescind the contract and sue for his deposit, he is not entitled to a hen upon the property in question. (Davis v. Rosenzweig Realty Co., 192 N. Y. 128.) Present — Lazansky, P. J., Young, Carswell, Tompkins and Davis, JJ. Settle order on notice.

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

Judgment modified by striking out the decretal portions thereof and substituting in place thereof a provision for the recovery by plaintiff from the defendants of the sum of $1,000, with interest and costs, and as so modified unanimously affirmed, with costs to respondent. Finding of fact 12 and proposed findings of the defendants found by the trial court numbered 7, 8 and 10 are reversed as contrary to the evidence. Conclusion of law 3, and also 4 so far as it finds that plaintiff is entitled to a hen on the premises in question and directs a sale thereof, are reversed. As the plaintiff elected to rescind the contract and sue for his deposit, he is not entitled to a hen upon the property in question. (Davis v. Rosenzweig Realty Co., 192 N. Y. 128.) Present — Lazansky, P. J., Young, Carswell, Tompkins and Davis, JJ. Settle order on notice.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

235 A.D. 747, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rowe-v-hollis-holding-corp-nyappdiv-1932.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack