Schoonmaker v. . Heckscher
New York Court of Appeals
Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the- Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered February 3, 1916, affirming a judgment in favor of defendant entered upon a dismissal of the complaint by the court at Special Term in an action to enforce the so-called Murray Hill building restriction agreement.
Read the full summary
Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the- Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered February 3, 1916, affirming a judgment in favor of defendant entered upon a dismissal of the complaint by the court at Special Term in an action to enforce the so-called Murray Hill building restriction agreement. The defendant moved for a dismissal of the complaint upon the pleadings on the ground that the defendant’s property was not -within the area covered by the alleged restrictive agreement. This motion was granted. It appears from the defendant’s an'swer that his property…
1Opinion of the Court
Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.
Concur: Chase, Collin, Hogan, Cardozo and Sea-bury, JJ. Dissenting: Willard Bartlett, Ch. J., and Hiscock, J.
2Cited by26 opinions
- Buffalo Academy of Sacred Heart v. Boehm Bros.New York Court of Appeals · 1935
- Premium Point Park Ass'n v. Polar Bar, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1954
- Morrill Realty Corp. v. Rayon Holding Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1930
- Holliday v. SpharCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1935
- Single v. WhitmoreNew York Court of Appeals · 1954
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.