Legal Opinion

Keitel v. Zimmermann

New York Supreme Court

Decided February 15, 1897PublishedCited by 5 opinions

Action by vendees for breach of contract to convey realty.

1Opinion of the CourtMcAdam, J.

The plaintiffs, vendees in' a contract for the purchase of premises Ho. 445 West Eifty-third street, Hew York city, sue the defendants as vendors to recover back $250 deposit on the execution of the agreement, and $168.90 paid for examining the title, upon the ground that the defendants were unable to perform their undertaking. The contract-is signed by the vendors only; but this is sufficient, for the rule is settled that in equity for obtain*582ing a specific performance, as well as at law for recovering damages, the signature of the party who makes the engagement is all that the statute…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Ziehen v. . SmithNew York Court of Appeals · 1896
  2. Clason v. BaileyCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1817
  3. Van Brocklen v. . SmeallieNew York Court of Appeals · 1893
  4. Hine v. Manhattan Railway Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1892
  5. Moser v. . CochraneNew York Court of Appeals · 1887

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Levin v. DietzAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1905
  2. Stokes v. WallerCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1921
  3. Pfeil Construction Corp. v. MoleyNew York Supreme Court · 1958
  4. KM v. Katonah-Lewisboro Union Free School DistrictDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2020
  5. Listokin v. Miller Zeiderman LLPDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2022

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

Powered by the Exa API