Soderbery v. Laurelton Land Co.

189 A.D. 910

This text of 189 A.D. 910 (Soderbery v. Laurelton Land Co.) 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
Soderbery v. Laurelton Land Co., 189 A.D. 910 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1919).

Opinion

Judgment affirmed, with costs. We think that Feldblum v. Laurelton Land Co. (151 App. Div. 24; 210 N. Y. 594) is still authority for-a situation such as proven here — that is, where the contemplated or represented improvements have been abandoned and not merely delayed, as was the situation in Brede v. Rosedale Terrace Co. (216 N. Y. 247). In other words, we think that the decision in the Brede case should not be regarded as having impaired the authority of the Feldblum case in that respect. Jenks, P. J., Mills, Rich, Putnam and Blackmar, JJ., concurred.

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

Related

Feldblum v. . Laurelton Land Company
104 N.E. 1129 (New York Court of Appeals, 1914)
Feldblum v. Laurelton Land Co.
151 A.D. 24 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1912)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
189 A.D. 910, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/soderbery-v-laurelton-land-co-nyappdiv-1919.