Legal Opinion

McKenzie v. Woodward

New York Supreme Court

Decided August 15, 1917PublishedCited by 1 opinion

Motion to compel the purchaser at a partition sale to complete his purchase.

1Opinion of the CourtRodenbeck, J.

1. The purchaser at a judicial sale attacking a title has the burden of showing facts which impair the title (Greenblatt v. Hermann, 144 N. Y. 13; Seitz v. Messerschmitt, 117 App. Div. 401, 407; Hagan v. Drucker, 90 id. 28; Goodwin v. Crooks, 33 Misc. Rep. 39), and where the validity of *48the title depends on an impossible or remote contingency the court will compel specific performance. Ferry v. Sampson, 112 N. Y. 415; Cambrelleng v. Purton, 125 id. 617; Hamershlag v. Duryea, 58 App. Div. 288; Empire Realty Corp. v. Sayre, 107 id. 415; Seitz v. Messerschmitt, supra. If the defect relied upon…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Greenblatt v. . HermannNew York Court of Appeals · 1894
  2. Ferry v. . SampsonNew York Court of Appeals · 1889
  3. Hamershlag v. DuryeaAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1901
  4. Seitz v. MesserschmittAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1907
  5. Goodwin v. CrooksNew York Supreme Court · 1900

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Witenberg v. Banca Commerciale ItalianaAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1948

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

Powered by the Exa API