From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Berfond v. Griffin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 1, 1927
219 App. Div. 728 (N.Y. App. Div. 1927)

Opinion

January, 1927.


Judgment reversed upon the law, and new trial granted, costs to abide the event. We are of opinion that the memorandum of purchase, plaintiff's Exhibit 1, cannot be regarded as an option. It is sufficient, as a contract of sale, to bind defendant; and being so regarded, we think the request of plaintiff for an adjournment was a reasonable one, and should have been complied with. Kelly, P.J., Manning, Young and Lazansky, JJ., concur; Kapper, J., dissents, and votes to affirm, upon the ground that equitable principles do not apply under the circumstances here shown, the vendor having parted with the title after the time fixed for the making of the contract, and before the action was brought; and that as time was of the essence of the contract, even assuming that the paper was not an option, but was a contract, the default in making the down payment was wholly that of the vendee, and released the vendor from any obligation to perform.


Summaries of

Berfond v. Griffin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 1, 1927
219 App. Div. 728 (N.Y. App. Div. 1927)
Case details for

Berfond v. Griffin

Case Details

Full title:HARRY BERFOND, Appellant, v. WILLIAM H. GRIFFIN, Respondent

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

Date published: Jan 1, 1927

Citations

219 App. Div. 728 (N.Y. App. Div. 1927)