Legal Opinion

Lewis v. Ludlam

New York Supreme Court

Decided April 15, 1921PublishedCited by 5 opinions

Action for specific performance of an option to purchase.

1Opinion of the CourtVan Siclen, J.

The plaintiff sues for specific performance of an option to purchase as contained in' a lease. In 1912, the plaintiff, together with Joseph B. Meade, as tenants, entered into a lease of certain premises with the defendant as lessee. The lease contained a privilege of renewal for five years more and an option to purchase the demised premises at the price of $20,000. At some time before 1916, one McNulty was given some portion of the two lessees’ interest in the lease. Then in 1916, Meade and McNulty assigned all their interest to the plaintiff by and with the knowledge and consent of the…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Rockland-Rockport Lime Co. v. . LearyNew York Court of Appeals · 1911
  2. Schroeder v. GemeinderNevada Supreme Court · 1875
  3. Bullock v. CuttingAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1913
  4. Pflum v. SpencerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1908

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Superior Portland Cement, Inc. v. Pacific Coast Cement Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1949
  2. Roth v. SniderWashington Supreme Court · 1946
  3. Hindu Incense Manufacturing Co. v. MacKenzieAppellate Court of Illinois · 1948
  4. Hindu Incense Manufacturing Co. v. MacKenzieAppellate Court of Illinois · 1948
  5. Sup'r Port. Etc. v. Pac. Coast Etc.Washington Supreme Court · 1949

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API