Legal Opinion

Laverty v. . Moore

New York Court of Appeals

Decided December 5, 1865PublishedCited by 14 opinions

Appeal from the Supreme Court. The action was to enforce specific performance of a contract for the conveyance of an interest in lands in Williamshurgh, and to recover possession thereof. A decree was entered in favor of the plaintiff, and of the defendants with whom the appellant was impleaded, upon the report of the late Judge Kent, to whom the cause was referred.

Read the full summary

Appeal from the Supreme Court. The action was to enforce specific performance of a contract for the conveyance of an interest in lands in Williamshurgh, and to recover possession thereof. A decree was entered in favor of the plaintiff, and of the defendants with whom the appellant was impleaded, upon the report of the late Judge Kent, to whom the cause was referred. The decree was affirmed on appeal at the General Term in the second district, and the case is reported in 32 Barbour, 317. - The following are the.material facts found by the referee: Francis Titns owned a farm in Williamshurgh,…

1Opinion of the CourtPorter, J.

The facts found by the referee are decisive in support of the plaintiff’s right. On the 9th of February, 1835, a sealed agreement was concluded between La-verty and Guild, by which the former undertook to fill in the premises in question, and the latter'to convey to him an undivided third of the property in fee, upon the performance of this agreement. The plaintiff fulfilled his covenant and entered into possession as vendee. He repeatedly demanded his conveyance, and Guild promised but neglected to execute it.

The appellant Moore had never any title to the premises. The parties, through whom…

2Cited by14 opinions

  1. Duffy v. . O'DonovanNew York Court of Appeals · 1871
  2. Clapp v. . McCabeNew York Court of Appeals · 1898
  3. Arents v. . Long Island R.R. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1898
  4. Stewart v. . BramhallNew York Court of Appeals · 1878
  5. Montana Mining Co. v. St. Louis Min. & Mill Co. of MontanaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1910

9 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