From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Krasnow v. Topp

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 16, 1908
128 App. Div. 156 (N.Y. App. Div. 1908)

Opinion

October 16, 1908.

A. Wolodarsky, for the appellants.

Lehman Telsey, for the respondent.


Before any witness was sworn the defendant moved that the case be sent to the jury calendar for a jury trial. The claim was that the complaint itself showed that the defendant could not perform, and that therefore the case was not of equitable jurisdiction, as specific performance will not be decreed where it is impossible. But it did not appear that it was impossible. The defendant might, for aught that appeared, put himself in a position to perform by acquiring title to the four inch strip encroached upon. The case is no different than if the defendant had not owned any of the land he contracted to convey. The motion to send the case to the jury calendar was therefore properly denied; and as at the close it appeared that the defendant could not perform, the court had the right to give the money judgment prayed for.

The judgment should be affirmed.

JENKS, HOOKER, RICH and MILLER, JJ., concurred.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.


Summaries of

Krasnow v. Topp

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 16, 1908
128 App. Div. 156 (N.Y. App. Div. 1908)
Case details for

Krasnow v. Topp

Case Details

Full title:MARTHA KRASNOW, Respondent, v . HARRY TOPP and Others, Appellants

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Oct 16, 1908

Citations

128 App. Div. 156 (N.Y. App. Div. 1908)
112 N.Y.S. 546

Citing Cases

Schubel v. Bernarr MacFadden Foundation, Inc.

Town of Islip v. Smith, 3 A.D.2d 726), the learned Special Term was likewise free to conclude that appellant…