Legal Opinion

Mahaney v. . Carr

New York Court of Appeals

Decided June 25, 1903PublishedCited by 39 opinions

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, entered January 23, 1902, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term. The nature of the action and the facts, so far as material, are stated in the opinion. The language upon which it is sought to base this alleged contract is indefinite, uncertain and incapable of an intelligent meaning. (22 Am. & Eng.

Read the full summary

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, entered January 23, 1902, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term. The nature of the action and the facts, so far as material, are stated in the opinion. The language upon which it is sought to base this alleged contract is indefinite, uncertain and incapable of an intelligent meaning. (22 Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law, 1006; Foote v. Webb, 59 Barb. 38; Pt. Jervis v. N. Y. R. Co., 56 Hun, 646; Cronkhite v. Cronkhite, 94 N. Y. 323;…

1Opinion of the CourtO’Brien, J.

This action was in form an action for specific performance and resulted in a judgment for the plaintiff which has been unanimously affirmed. There are two questions still open for review in this court, and these questions are, first, whether the findings of fact sustain the judgment, and, second, whether there was error of law committed by the learned trial judge in the rulings and decisions in the course of the trial to which exceptions were taken. The review of the case in this court must, therefore, be confined to those two general questions.

The plaintiff is the granddaughter of one Joseph…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Winne v. . WinneNew York Court of Appeals · 1901
  2. Freeman v. . FreemanNew York Court of Appeals · 1870
  3. Stokes v. . StokesNew York Court of Appeals · 1896
  4. Brantingham v. . HuffNew York Court of Appeals · 1903

3Cited by39 opinions

  1. Hamlin v. . StevensNew York Court of Appeals · 1903
  2. Rosseau v. . RoussNew York Court of Appeals · 1904
  3. Middleworth v. . OrdwayNew York Court of Appeals · 1908
  4. Wooley v. Shell Petroleum Corp.New Mexico Supreme Court · 1935
  5. Levin v. . DietzNew York Court of Appeals · 1909

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

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

Powered by the Exa API