Ward v. McCarthy
This text of 202 A.D. 849 (Ward v. McCarthy) 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.
Opinion
The common grantor, the West Roekaway Land Company, was without power, by subsequent action, to change or modify the written terms of the covenant contained in its deeds to the premises in question, after it had parted with the title thereto. (Gutting v. Eiermann, 165 App. Div. 916.) It follows that the judgment must be reversed upon the law, and the complaint dismissed, with costs. Findings of fact numbers 5, 15, 16, 17, 19 and 20, and conclusions of law numbers 1 and 2 are reversed, and in their place and stead the following are found: Findings 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 of defendant’s proposed findings of fact, and the following conclusions of law: (1) That the common grantor, the West Roekaway Land Company, was without power to alter or modify the terms of the written covenant contained in prior deeds to the premises owned by plaintiffs and defendant, after it had parted with the title thereto. (2) The complaint is dismissed, with costs to defendant. Blaekmar, P. J., Rich, Jaycox and Young, JJ., concur; Kelly, J., dissents. Settle order on notice.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
202 A.D. 849, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ward-v-mccarthy-nyappdiv-1922.