Hayes v. Kershow
New York Court of Chancery
The hill in this cause was filed by A. B. Hayes and G. C. Thorburn, executors of Stephen Mayers, to compel the defend-, ant, Kershow, to complete a contract for the purchase of certain real estate, made by him at an executor’s sale, in February, 1842. Kershow interposed no objection to completing his purchase, except that the title to the land was imperfect.
Read the full summary
The hill in this cause was filed by A. B. Hayes and G. C. Thorburn, executors of Stephen Mayers, to compel the defend-, ant, Kershow, to complete a contract for the purchase of certain real estate, made by him at an executor’s sale, in February, 1842. Kershow interposed no objection to completing his purchase, except that the title to the land was imperfect. It appeared that Mayers, the testator, was a bona fide purchaser of the premises for a valuable consideration, from Mrs. Henrietta Anderson. Mrs. A. derived her title as follows: On the 11th day of December, 1807, Thomas and James Swords…
1Opinion of the Court
The Assistant Vice-Chancellor.
The defendant interposes no objection to completing his contract of purchase, provided he can receive a perfect title.
This depends .upon the effect of the instruments executed by Thomas and James Swords to Mrs. Anderson and James Davidson, on the 11th day of December, 1807. If the covenant of the Messrs. Swords’ was binding and irrevocable by them, the , subsequent release of the trustees was unavailing to discharge it. And if by the true construction of those instruments, they are to be deemed as constituting but one deed, and that a conveyance in prcesenti; the…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Bank of the United States v. HousmanNew York Court of Chancery · 1837
- Jackson ex dem. Staats v. StaatsNew York Supreme Court · 1814
- Jackson ex dem. Trowbridge v. DunsbaghNew York Supreme Court · 1799
- Jackson ex dem. Wood v. SwartNew York Supreme Court · 1822
- Buford's Heirs v. McKeeCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1833
3Cited by1 opinion
- Ten Eyck v. . WitbeckNew York Court of Appeals · 1892