Carman v. Bedell
New York Supreme Court
Action for specific performance of contract of purchase and sale. The above action was brought by the plaintiff as vendor by reason of a certain agreement to sell certain real premises situated at Rockville Centre, L. I. The above agreement of purchase and sale of real estate after several adjournments was set down for closing on October 16, 1913, and the above defendant at the time therein set for closing absolutely refused to take title, claiming that same was unmarketable…
Read the full summary
Action for specific performance of contract of purchase and sale. The above action was brought by the plaintiff as vendor by reason of a certain agreement to sell certain real premises situated at Rockville Centre, L. I. The above agreement of purchase and sale of real estate after several adjournments was set down for closing on October 16, 1913, and the above defendant at the time therein set for closing absolutely refused to take title, claiming that same was unmarketable in two particulars, namely, that in a certain action brought about the year 1879, two defendants in said action were…
1Opinion of the CourtVan Siclen, J.
This is an application by the plaintiff for judgment on the pleadings. Counsel concedes that all the material allegations of fact as set forth in the pleadings may be considered as a true and complete statement thereof. The action is brought for specific performance of a certain contract for the purchase and sale of certain real estate located in Nassau county, and the defendant has refused to take title to the property contending that the title thereof is not marketable because jurisdiction was not acquired of certain defendants in an action brought affecting said premises in the year 1879.…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Sunswick Land Co. v. MurdockAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1908
- Stanton v. EastmanNew York Supreme Court · 1909