O'Reilly v. King
The Superior Court of New York City
' This was an action to recover a deposit of $600, made upon a contract for the purchase of two lots of land. The contract promised that if the title, on examination, should prove insufficient, the deposit should be paid back. The objection to the title was that certain proceedings in the Supreme Court for the sale of the interests of infant owners were defective. The action was-tried before the Chief Justice of this court, without a jury, at a special term.
Read the full summary
' This was an action to recover a deposit of $600, made upon a contract for the purchase of two lots of land. The contract promised that if the title, on examination, should prove insufficient, the deposit should be paid back. The objection to the title was that certain proceedings in the Supreme Court for the sale of the interests of infant owners were defective. The action was-tried before the Chief Justice of this court, without a jury, at a special term. The following conclusions of fact were found : 1. The contract in the complaint and answer mentioned, dated April 30th, 1862, was made…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
Monell, J.
I am unable to subscribe to the views of the learned chief justice, that the title offered to the plaintiff was insufficient, and so doubtful that he had a right for that reason to disaffirm the sale and recover his deposit. If the action had been on the equity side of the court to compel Reilly to take the title, I should express any opinion of its sufficiency with much hesitation. The difficulties suggested by "the chief justice would, of themselves, cause me to hesitate, and perhaps to doubt. But the action is at law to recover back the deposit upon a rescission of…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Hyatt v. . SeeleyNew York Court of Appeals · 1854
- In re WhitlockNew York Supreme Court · 1860