Freedman v. . Oppenheim
New York Court of Appeals
Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered March 20, 1905, reversing a judgment in. favor of plaintiffs entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term and granting a new trial. The nature of the action and the facts, so far as material, are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the CourtHaight, J.
This action was brought to compel a specific performance of a contract to exchange real estate, bearing date the lltli day of September, 1901. The defendant refused to accept the plaintiffs’ title on the grounds: First, that there was outstanding in one Mary Jane Houseman a one-fifth interest in the property, and second, that one J ames M. Cruser, who was the.owner of the other four fifths of the premises in question, liad never conveyed the same. Upon .the first trial of this action it appeared that in 1834 one Jacob Houseman was the record owner of the premises in question, and that he died…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Heller v. . CohenNew York Court of Appeals · 1897
- Simis v. . McElroyNew York Court of Appeals · 1899
- Hewlett v. D. & S. CockNew York Supreme Court · 1831
- McKinnon v. . BlissNew York Court of Appeals · 1860
- Troup v. HurlbutNew York Supreme Court · 1851
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- Felt v. MorseSupreme Court of Florida · 1920
- R. E. L. McCaskill Co. v. DekleSupreme Court of Florida · 1924
- Trimboli v. . KinkelNew York Court of Appeals · 1919
- Perkins v. AugustSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1929
- Hinton v. MartinSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1922
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.