Legal Opinion · Dissent

Dunckel v. Dunckel

New York Supreme Court

Decided February 4, 1890Published

Appeal from circuit court, Montgomery county. Action by Emma Dunckel against William Dunckel to compel the specific performance of a contract. From a judgmentfor plaintiff, and the orders denying a motion for a new trial, and granting an extra allowance, defendant appeals.

1Dissent

Learned, P. J.,

(dissenting.) The plaintiff is the widow, executrix, and sole legatee of John A. Dunekel, who died February 9, 1883, and who was the son of defendant. Since 1866 the defendant has been the owner in fee of the premises in question, but they were occupied by John A. Dunekel from that time until his death. At the time of his death, John A. Dunekel was largely indebted. The total indebtedness turned out to be over $11,000, on about $7,500 of which the defendant was liable as surety, in some form. The defendant was apprehensive that he might have to pay these debts, or a part of…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Kenyon v. YoulanNew York Supreme Court · 1889
  2. Rodman v. FormanNew York Supreme Court · 1811
  3. Morrill v. CooperNew York Supreme Court · 1873

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API