O'Reilly v. King
The Superior Court of New York City
This was an action to recover a deposit of $600 made upon a contract for the purchase of two lots of land. The contract provided that if the title on examination should prove insufficient, the deposit should be paid back. The objection to the title was that certain proceedings in the supreme court for the sale of the interests of infant owners were defective.
1Opinion of the Court
By the court, I am unable to subscribe to the views of the learned chief justice, that the title offered to the plaintiff was insufficient, and so doubtful that he had a right for that reason to disaffirm the sale and recover his deposit. If the action had been on the equity side of the court to compel Reilly to take the title, I should express my opinion of its sufficiency with much hesitation. The difficulties suggested by the chief justice would of themselves, cause me to hesitate and perhaps to doubt. But the action is at law to recover back the deposit upon a recision of the contract of…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- In re WhitlockNew York Supreme Court · 1860
3Cited by4 opinions
- Cole v. . GourlayNew York Court of Appeals · 1880
- In re Estate of Harris, Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco1908
- Methodist Episcopal Church Home v. ThompsonNew York Court of Appeals · 1888
- Toole v. TooleNew York Court of Appeals · 1889