Balheimer v. Reichardt
New York Supreme Court
The above action was brought to specifically enforce a contract for the exchange of real estate, dated May, 1877. The defense set up, was misrepresentation, made by the defendant’s broker (one Roth) as to plaintiff’s property; that said broker had accepted a commission from plaintiff for the services he had rendered him (plaintiff ). The defendant claimed that this, in fact, constituted bribery on part of plaintiff.
Read the full summary
The above action was brought to specifically enforce a contract for the exchange of real estate, dated May, 1877. The defense set up, was misrepresentation, made by the defendant’s broker (one Roth) as to plaintiff’s property; that said broker had accepted a commission from plaintiff for the services he had rendered him (plaintiff ). The defendant claimed that this, in fact, constituted bribery on part of plaintiff. The testimony established the fact that defendant, after he had been informed of the alleged misrepresentations, and had refused to carry out the contract, nevertheless applied…
1Opinion of the Court
Lawrence J.
On the trial of this case I was strongly of the impression that the defendant after having entered into the contract now sought to be enforced had repented of his bargain, and was casting about for some excuse for refusing to fulfill it.
Having perused the testimony carefully I am strengthened in this impression.
The evidence does not impress me as proving that the defendant was induced to enter into the contract, by any fraudulent representations made either by the plaintiff or by Both. As to the alleged representations he is contradicted by the plaintiff and by Both.
He had visited…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Bronson v. . WimanNew York Court of Appeals · 1853
3Cited by2 opinions
- Haviland v. PriceNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1894
- Haviland v. PriceNew York Supreme Court · 1894