Legal Opinion

Barrand v. Quinn

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

Decided July 13, 1950Published

1Opinion of the Court

Order reversed on the law, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint granted, with $10 costs. Memorandum: The restrictive covenant under consideration here speaks only of buildings to be erected in the future. There is no ambiguity as to the use of buildings already in existence. That subject is not covered by the contract as written. Courts cannot make new contracts for parties or give those already made a strained construction. “Restrictions as to buildings ‘to be erected’ do not limit the use of buildings already erected.” (3 Weed on New York Real…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Hutchison v. RossNew York Court of Appeals · 1933
  2. Goldstein v. Frances Emblems, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1945
  3. Peterson v. City of New YorkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1932
  4. Zimmermann v. LoftAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1908
  5. Barnard v. . SwayneNew York Court of Appeals · 1920

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API