Teitz v. Goettler

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Teitz v. Goettler

191 A.D. 924

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

DecidedMarch 15, 1920

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 191 A.D. 924 (Teitz v. Goettler) 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

Teitz v. Goettler, 191 A.D. 924 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1920).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. We think the plaintiff failed to prove any valid contract or note or memorandum thereof in writing, subscribed by the defendant or her lawfully authorized agent. The evidence fails to show any authority to the real estate agent to sign a contract for the sale of the property in defendant’s behalf. The letter and telegrams of defendant all indicate her intention that her sister was to represent her upon any actual sale made. (Stone v. U. S. Title Guaranty & Indemnity Co., 159 App. Div. 679; affd., 217 N. Y. 656; Hottenroth v. Hastorf, 191 App. Div. 897; Coleman v. Garrigues, 18 Barb. 60; Weatherhead v. Ettinger, 78 Ohio St. 104, 17 L. R. A. [N. S.] 210.) We are also of opinion that the alleged contract is unilateral, and cannot be enforced in equity. (Levin v. Dietz, 194 N. Y. 376; Wadick v. Mace, 191 id. 1.) Present — Jenks, P. J., Mills, Putnam, Blackmar and Kelly, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. We think the plaintiff failed to prove any valid contract or note or memorandum thereof in writing, subscribed by the defendant or her lawfully authorized agent. The evidence fails to show any authority to the real estate agent to sign a contract for the sale of the property in defendant’s behalf. The letter and telegrams of defendant all indicate her intention that her sister was to represent her upon any actual sale made. (Stone v. U. S. Title Guaranty & Indemnity Co., 159 App. Div. 679; affd., 217 N. Y. 656; Hottenroth v. Hastorf, 191 App. Div. 897; Coleman v. Garrigues, 18 Barb. 60; Weatherhead v. Ettinger, 78 Ohio St. 104, 17 L. R. A. [N. S.] 210.) We are also of opinion that the alleged contract is unilateral, and cannot be enforced in equity. (Levin v. Dietz, 194 N. Y. 376; Wadick v. Mace, 191 id. 1.) Present — Jenks, P. J., Mills, Putnam, Blackmar and Kelly, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

191 A.D. 924, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/teitz-v-goettler-nyappdiv-1920.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack