Mehlhop v. . Central Union Trust Co.

One Haebler was the owner of a parcel of real estate in the city of New York. A past due mortgage for $30,000 held by the Central Union Trust Company, the defendant, was a hen upon the land. Haebler was not hable upon the bond, but he was anxious to prevent the foreclosure of the hen. To that end, he obtained the assurance of the defendant’s representative that the mortgage would be extended for three years if a payment of $3,000 was made upon account. The understanding then reached was indefinite and inchoate. Details were left to be settled upon the signing of the written contract which was…