Rinaldo v. Housmann
New York Court of Common Pleas
Trial of action for specific performance. On January 26, 1876, the plaintiff entered into a contract with the defendant, for the sale of certain premises in the city of New York, at the price of $26,000, to be paid as follows : $2,000 upon the signing of the agreement, $6,000 by assuming a mortgage upon the premises, and $18,000 in cash, which was to be paid on the 15th of February, 1876, on which day the deed was to be delivered.
Read the full summary
Trial of action for specific performance. On January 26, 1876, the plaintiff entered into a contract with the defendant, for the sale of certain premises in the city of New York, at the price of $26,000, to be paid as follows : $2,000 upon the signing of the agreement, $6,000 by assuming a mortgage upon the premises, and $18,000 in cash, which was to be paid on the 15th of February, 1876, on which day the deed was to be delivered. There were mortgages on the premises amounting to $20,000, and on the day fixed for the. passing of the deed, the defendant attended at the place designated, with…
1Opinion of the CourtVan Brunt, J.
I am aware that the language of the court in the case of Morange v. Morris sustains the defendant’s position in this case: the court say that “it is the duty of the defendant [seller] to have caused them [the mortgages] to be discharged before the time arrived at which he had stipulated to convey.”
The laying down of so broad a principle was not necessary to a decision of that case.
The case of Hinckley v. Smith, 51 N. Y. 21, is a much later authority, and is in direct conflict upon this point with the case of Morange Morris. The case of Hinckley v. Smith lays down the rule that the seller must…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Hinckley v. . SmithNew York Court of Appeals · 1872
3Cited by2 opinions
- Cogswell v. BoehmNew York Supreme Court · 1889
- Keating v. GuntherNew York Supreme Court · 1890