Legal Opinion

Tausk v. Siry

New York Supreme Court

Decided February 15, 1920PublishedCited by 2 opinions

Action to compel specific performance.

1Opinion of the CourtCropsey, J.

The plaintiffs refuse to take title under a contract to purchase real estate, on the ground of an unsatisfied judgment against the former owner of the property. They bring this action to compel specific performance or to recover their deposit and expenses. The judgment in question was docketed September 18, 1912, at nine forty-eight a. m. It is for $3,673.36. On October 5, 1912, a deed was recorded, made by the parties against whom the judgment was entered. That deed was dated September 17, 1912. It is undisputed *515that a deed is presumed to have been delivered upon the day it bears date.…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Moore v. . WilliamsNew York Court of Appeals · 1889
  2. Trenton Banking Company v. . DuncanNew York Court of Appeals · 1881
  3. The People v. . SnyderNew York Court of Appeals · 1869
  4. Anderson v. Steinway & SonsAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1917
  5. Sweetland v. . BuellNew York Court of Appeals · 1900

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Gaines v. HuylerNew York Supreme Court · 1920
  2. Saidel v. Brenner, New York County Courts1964

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

Powered by the Exa API