Kerr v. Purdy
New York Supreme Court
APPEAL from a judgment entered on the report of a referee, denying a decree for specific performance of a contract to convey real estate, made between Elisha Purdy and Robert A. Kerr. The premises in question were, on the 23d of April, 1831, conveyed hy their then owner to Uriah Drake, who, on the 18th of March, 1833, conveyed them, with another farm, to Elisha Purdy.
Read the full summary
APPEAL from a judgment entered on the report of a referee, denying a decree for specific performance of a contract to convey real estate, made between Elisha Purdy and Robert A. Kerr. The premises in question were, on the 23d of April, 1831, conveyed hy their then owner to Uriah Drake, who, on the 18th of March, 1833, conveyed them, with another farm, to Elisha Purdy. The latter, in 1836, mortgaged these premises to one John W. Ward, for the sum of $800, which mortgage is still a subsisting lien on them, and is now held and owned hy the defendant George W. Purdy. On the 31st of January, 1859,…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Oourt,
Hogeboom, J.
I think this judgment should be reversed and a new trial granted therein for the following among other reasons :
1. Kerr had a clear right at any tiihe on or before April 1, 1862, to purchase the premises by paying $10,000 for them, and all arrearages of rent.
2. Prior to the 31st of March, 1862, he, or the plaintiff with his consent, had made an absolute purchase and obtained the title of two of the five heirs of Elisha Purdy. There is some plausibility in saying that this was a part performance on his part and on the part of the persons who together represented Elisha…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Bateman v. . HopkinsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1911
- Wilks v. Georgia Pacific RailroadSupreme Court of Alabama · 1885
- Mason v. PayneSupreme Court of Missouri · 1871
- Johnson v. PortwoodTexas Supreme Court · 1896