Torres v. Thompson

New York Supreme Court

Torres v. Thompson

29 Misc. 526, 60 N.Y.S. 790

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedNovember 15, 1899

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 29 Misc. 526 (Torres v. Thompson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Torres v. Thompson, 29 Misc. 526, 60 N.Y.S. 790 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1899).

Pincite

Opinion

Gaynor, J.:

It was pleaded as a defense that the work was done and material furnished under an agreement that the defendants should pay for the same by conveying to the plaintiffs certain land, and that they had tendered such conveyance. The contract was oral, and when oral evidence was offered of it by the defendants the plaintiffs’ objection to it was overruled. The exception to such ruling is not good. True, a contract for the sale of real property is void unless in writing and signed by the grantor. It does not need to be signed by the grantee; and when he pays the consideration he cannot refuse to accept the conveyance and recover back what he has paid. In such case it is only the grantor who. can raise the question of no written contract (Collier v. Coates, 17 Barb. 471; Galvin v. Prentice, 45 N. Y. 162).

The motion is denied.

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

Gaynor, J.:

It was pleaded as a defense that the work was done and material furnished under an agreement that the defendants should pay for the same by conveying to the plaintiffs certain land, and that they had tendered such conveyance. The contract was oral, and when oral evidence was offered of it by the defendants the plaintiffs’ objection to it was overruled. The exception to such ruling is not good. True, a contract for the sale of real property is void unless in writing and signed by the grantor. It does not need to be signed by the grantee; and when he pays the consideration he cannot refuse to accept the conveyance and recover back what he has paid. In such case it is only the grantor who. can raise the question of no written contract (Collier v. Coates, 17 Barb. 471; Galvin v. Prentice, 45 N. Y. 162).

The motion is denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 Misc. 526, 60 N.Y.S. 790, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/torres-v-thompson-nysupct-1899.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack