Freeborn v. Wagner
New York Court of Appeals
This suit was brought to enforce the specific performance of -a contract to purchase real estate. On the 18th day of September, 1865, the plaintiffs entered into into an agreement in writing with the defendant, whereby they agreed to convey to him, for the sum of $11,000, a certain hotel premises, at Tivoli, in the town of Reclhook, Dutchess county.
Read the full summary
This suit was brought to enforce the specific performance of -a contract to purchase real estate. On the 18th day of September, 1865, the plaintiffs entered into into an agreement in writing with the defendant, whereby they agreed to convey to him, for the sum of $11,000, a certain hotel premises, at Tivoli, in the town of Reclhook, Dutchess county. The contract required the defendant to pay $3,000 on the 1st day of May, 1866, and at that time to execute a bond and mortgage upon the premises for the balance of the purchase money, $8,000, payable in eight annual installments, with interest;…
1Opinion of the CourtWoodruff, J.
I cannot yield my assent to the argument that (apart from the legal effect of the power of testamentary *31disposition), each devisee was invested with the power to dispose of the entire fee in her lifetime, in her share devised for her benefit. That view of the subject is sought to be inferred from the will “ because the limitation over embraced only such part of the property as shah remain undisposed of at the death of the devisee who shall first die.” This is a partial and disjointed presentation of the terms of the will, and is made the ground of inference that a power to dispose of the…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Lawrence v. BayardNew York Court of Chancery · 1838
- Helmer v. ShoemakerNew York Supreme Court · 1839
- Leslie v. MarshallNew York Supreme Court · 1860
3Cited by2 opinions
- Cutting v. . CuttingNew York Court of Appeals · 1881
- McLoughlin v. MaherNew York Supreme Court · 1879