McMulkin v. Bates
New York Supreme Court
This action was brought to compel defendant to complete a contract to purchase a house and lot of plaintiffs, executors of the last will and testament of Thomas Kerr, deceased, which plaintiffs agreed to convey under the will, they supposing that they had such power. This action, so far as this relief sought is concerned, has been disposed of by the judgment of this court to the effect that the plaintiffs have no power under the will to convey.
Read the full summary
This action was brought to compel defendant to complete a contract to purchase a house and lot of plaintiffs, executors of the last will and testament of Thomas Kerr, deceased, which plaintiffs agreed to convey under the will, they supposing that they had such power. This action, so far as this relief sought is concerned, has been disposed of by the judgment of this court to the effect that the plaintiffs have no power under the will to convey. The defendant had in his answer a counter-claim for damages and for money paid to the plaintiffs under the contract on account of the purchase. The…
1Opinion of the CourtBrady, J.
The defendant in this action, relying upon the ability of the plaintiffs to give him a legal title after the contract of sale and purchase, made improvements upon the premises which involved a large outlay. He was under no obligation by his contract to do it, and it was done, therefore, for his own benefit and advantage. The plaintiffs were not chargeable with bad faith or fraud. There is nothing shown which warrants the belief that they knew that they had no right to convey, and they did not refuse to do so. On the contrary, they were anxious to complete the contract, but the defendant…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Washington, Alexandria, & Georgetown Steam-Packet Co. v. SicklesSupreme Court of the United States · 1861
- Putnam v. RitchieNew York Court of Chancery · 1837
- Downing v. . MarshallNew York Court of Appeals · 1867
3Cited by1 opinion
- Brisach v. VosselerNew York Supreme Court · 1920