Legal Opinion

Adamo v. Flow

New York Supreme Court

Decided November 13, 1964PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the CourtDaniel E. Macken, J.

Plaintiff executed an offer to purchase real estate owned by the defendants Flow by an instrument signed ‘ ‘ Samuel C. Adamo in behalf of a corporation to be formed ’ \ He brings this action individually for specific performance of the contract. It is apparent that in so executing the contract, the plaintiff did not intend to be personally bound. The purchase price of the property was $11,000 all of which, with the exception of $660 representing the broker’s commission, was to be paid by a purchase-money mortgage. The reason for plaintiff’s apparent intention not to be personally bound seems…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Levin v. . DietzNew York Court of Appeals · 1909
  2. Weiss v. BaumAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1926

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Cinema North Corporation, Cross-Appellee v. Plaza at Latham Associates and Hoyt's Cinema Corporation, Cross-AppellantsCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1989

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

Powered by the Exa API