Schutrum v. Horton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Schutrum v. Horton

272 A.D.2d 1086

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

DecidedNovember 12, 1947

StatusPublished

This text of 272 A.D.2d 1086 (Schutrum v. Horton) 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

Schutrum v. Horton, 272 A.D.2d 1086 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1947).

Pincite

Opinion

Defendants and third party plaintiffs, have appealed from an order of the Chemung County Court, granting the third party defendant’s motion to dismiss the third party complaint. The action is. for the specific performance of a contract for the sale of real estate. In their answer defendants allege that their signatures to the contract were procured through false and fraudulent representations by the third party defendant, a real estate broker. The County Court properly held that defendants were not entitled' to implead the third party defendant under the provisions of section 193-a of the Civil Practice Act. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. All concur.

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

Defendants and third party plaintiffs, have appealed from an order of the Chemung County Court, granting the third party defendant’s motion to dismiss the third party complaint. The action is. for the specific performance of a contract for the sale of real estate. In their answer defendants allege that their signatures to the contract were procured through false and fraudulent representations by the third party defendant, a real estate broker. The County Court properly held that defendants were not entitled' to implead the third party defendant under the provisions of section 193-a of the Civil Practice Act. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

272 A.D.2d 1086, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schutrum-v-horton-nyappdiv-1947.