From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rowe v. Hollis Holding Corporation

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 1, 1932
235 App. Div. 747 (N.Y. App. Div. 1932)

Opinion

March, 1932.

Present — Lazansky, P.J., Young, Carswell, Tompkins and Davis, JJ. Settle order on notice.


Judgment modified by striking out the decretal portions thereof and substituting in place thereof a provision for the recovery by plaintiff from the defendants of the sum of $1,000, with interest and costs, and as so modified unanimously affirmed, with costs to respondent. Finding of fact 12 and proposed findings of the defendants found by the trial court numbered 7, 8 and 10 are reversed as contrary to the evidence. Conclusion of law 3, and also 4 so far as it finds that plaintiff is entitled to a lien on the premises in question and directs a sale thereof, are reversed. As the plaintiff elected to rescind the contract and sue for his deposit, he is not entitled to a lien upon the property in question. ( Davis v. Rosenzweig Realty Co., 192 N.Y. 128.)


Summaries of

Rowe v. Hollis Holding Corporation

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 1, 1932
235 App. Div. 747 (N.Y. App. Div. 1932)
Case details for

Rowe v. Hollis Holding Corporation

Case Details

Full title:PERCY S. ROWE, Respondent, v. HOLLIS HOLDING CORPORATION and BERTRAM FINK…

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

Date published: Mar 1, 1932

Citations

235 App. Div. 747 (N.Y. App. Div. 1932)