Cleveland v. Burrill
New York Supreme Court
HIS was an action for the specific performance of a contract made in the state of New Jersey, for the purchase, by the defendant, of lands lying there, the defendant being a resident of that state, and the plaintiff a non-resident of this state. The cause was tried before the court without a jury.
1Opinion of the CourtBirdseye, J.
This is an action by the vendor of lands, against the vendee, to compel a specific performance by the defendant of his contract of purchase. The lands are situate in New Jersey; the contract was made there, and was to have been performed there. The plaintiff resided in that state when the contract was entered into; and is still a non-resident of this state.
It is strongly insisted, for the defendant, that this court cannot compel the defendant specifically to perform such a contract, and that no precedent can be found where a specific performance has been decreed under such circumstances. It…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Massie v. WattsSupreme Court of the United States · 1810
- Mead v. Merritt & PeckNew York Court of Chancery · 1831
- More v. SmedburghNew York Court of Chancery · 1841
- Harrington v. HigginsNew York Supreme Court · 1837
- Viele v. Troy & Boston Rail RoadNew York Supreme Court · 1855
3Cited by9 opinions
- Loaiza v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1890
- Sievers v. BrownOregon Supreme Court · 1899
- Gartrell v. StaffordNebraska Supreme Court · 1882
- Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railroad v. Chicago & Western Indiana RailroadIllinois Supreme Court · 1896
- Rourke v. McLaughlinCalifornia Supreme Court · 1869
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.