Legal Opinion

Dunham v. Minard

New York Court of Chancery

Decided May 6, 1834PublishedCited by 10 opinions

This was an application to compel the purchasers under a decree of sale in a partition suit, to complete their purchases. The premises were sold by the master as for a good and indisputable title, and as being free from incumbrances; and the purchasers were allowed a certain length of time to investigate the title. The purchasers afterwards refused to complete their purchases, on the ground of certain alleged incumbrances upon the premises.

Read the full summary

This was an application to compel the purchasers under a decree of sale in a partition suit, to complete their purchases. The premises were sold by the master as for a good and indisputable title, and as being free from incumbrances; and the purchasers were allowed a certain length of time to investigate the title. The purchasers afterwards refused to complete their purchases, on the ground of certain alleged incumbrances upon the premises. The title of the parties in this suit was derived from William Griffith, under a sale upon a judgment and execution against him, which judgment was…

1Opinion of the Court

The Chancellor.

It is not material to inquire whether the master was right in his conclusion, that the judgments against Bailey were not liens upon the husband’s life estate in Ms wife’s share of the premises. By the amendments to the partition law, as adopted by the legislature in 1830, a. conveyance to the purchaser, under a partition sale, is a bar against all persons having general liens or incumbrances, by judgment or decree, on any undivided share or interest in the premises sold, in all cases where notice to such creditors has been given as prescribed in the statute. (3 R. S. App. 156,…

2Cited by10 opinions

  1. Scott v. HowardNew York Supreme Court · 1848
  2. Halsted v. . HalstedNew York Court of Appeals · 1874
  3. Ouvrier v. MahonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1907
  4. Van Vleet v. BlackwoodMichigan Supreme Court · 1878
  5. Rout v. KingIndiana Supreme Court · 1885

5 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