Taylor v. Taylor

6 Citing cases

  1. Sweeney v. Brow

    40 R.I. 281 (R.I. 1917)   Cited 6 times
    Upholding award of damages for the cost of rebuilding a stone wall where there was testimony upon which trial justice could have based award

    The contention of the respondent then amounts to this, that the complainant having elected to proceed for the recovery of rents and profits by directing his examination to that end, and having discovered through such examination that no profits had accrued to the respondent through his conduct of the farm, he is estopped from proving and recovering the rental value. The respondent cites in support of the position which he takes, Taylor v. Taylor, 43 N.Y. 578; Worthington v. Hiss, 70 Md. 172; McLaughlin v. Barnum, 31 Md. 425; and two other cases decided by the Supreme Court of North Dakota which seem to rest upon a particular statute of that State and are not therefore of value in the present discussion. Neither of the first three cases, supra, maintains the doctrine that a complainant vendee cannot show the rents and profits which the respondent vendor, who has retained possession of the premises, has received and also the rental value of the premises as well.

  2. Ostrander v. Weber

    21 N.E. 112 (N.Y. 1889)   Cited 10 times

    In an equity action, the defendant, in order to insist that an adequate remedy exists at law, must set it up in his answer. ( Town of Mentz v. Cook, 108 N.Y. 504.) If a court of equity has jurisdiction and entertains the case, it will ordinarily retain the case until the whole subject is disposed of. ( Taylor v. Taylor, 43 N.Y. 578 -584; Ludlow v. Simond, 2 Caine's Cas. 55.) Hence, if this case in its course developed any legal aspect, such as the claim that the mortgage held by the appellant Weber covered other property than that covered by the other mortgages, an order directing the sale of such property might, in this action, have been made, and was so made, at his request, that the same be sold separately, and it was so sold, for $1. There is nothing in the findings nor in the case to show what separate property there was, or its value, and so this court cannot determine whether the purchaser made a good or bad bargain, or whether Weber was injured in the slightest degree by the sale. But its sale was within the equitable powers of the court, whether sold separately or in lump with the other, especially so when it was covered by the execution of the sheriff upon the Loughran judgment and execution, both of whom were parties to the action.

  3. Cobble Hill Nursing Home v. Henry and Warren

    196 A.D.2d 564 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)   Cited 10 times
    Finding that even where a seller caused the delay in the sale, a purchaser, as trustee holding the purchase money, was liable for interest accruing on the purchase price

    However, we find that the Supreme Court erred in denying Cobble Hill damages for rent, profits, and real estate taxes, and in denying Henry and Warren an offset for interest on the purchase money held by Cobble Hill. It is well established that a purchaser of real property who is awarded specific performance, may also recover damages sustained by him or her as a result of the seller's unreasonable and unwarranted delay in conveying the property (see, Taylor v Taylor, 43 N.Y. 578; Cooperstein v Patrician Estates, 117 A.D.2d 774, 775; 91 N.Y. Jur 2d, Real Property Sales and Exchanges, § 211, at 501). Moreover, the seller, as trustee of the real property for the benefit of the purchaser, is liable for rents and profits derived from the property during the delay, and the purchaser, as trustee of the purchase money, if not paid, for the benefit of the seller, is liable for interest accruing on the purchase money (see, Worrall v Munn, 38 N.Y. 137; 4200 Ave. K Realty Corp. v 4200 Realty Co., 123 A.D.2d 419).

  4. Cooperstein v. Patrician Estates

    117 A.D.2d 774 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)   Cited 1 times

    The evidence showed clearly that O'Shea and Patrician Estates functioned as one entity and that Patrician Estates failed to maintain any indicia of a separate corporate identity (see, Port Chester Elec. Constr. Corp. v. Atlas, 40 N.Y.2d 652). The appellants-respondents' contention that the Special Referee erred in awarding damages in addition to directing specific performance is simply without merit. It is well established that, in an action for specific performance, a party may recover such damages as have been sustained by him as a result of a vendor's unreasonable and unwarranted delay in performing (see, Taylor v Taylor, 43 N.Y. 578; Cattaneo v. Lynch, 14 Misc.2d 664). Since the remedy of specific performance was only for failure to convey the property, an award of damages was appropriate to compensate the plaintiffs for the appellants-respondents' breach of their promise to timely construct a house on the premises. The award of damages was fully supported by the evidence.

  5. Arena Athletic Club v. McPartland

    41 App. Div. 352 (N.Y. App. Div. 1899)   Cited 1 times

    The defendants set up in their answer that the plaintiff had a complete remedy at law, thus bringing them within the rule laid down in Town of Mentz v. Cook ( 108 N.Y. 504), and if there were not sufficient facts alleged in the complaint to give the court jurisdiction in equity then there could be no authority for retaining the case to determine the amount of the damages which the plaintiff may have sustained. The rule is that if a court of equity has jurisdiction and entertains the case, it will ordinarily retain it until the whole subject is disposed of. ( Taylor v. Taylor, 43 N.Y. 578, 584; Ostrander v. Weber, 114 id. 95, 102.) In the case at bar the court determined that it had no jurisdiction in equity, and refused to entertain it. Its incidental power of fixing the plaintiff's damages depended upon its having jurisdiction in equity, and as this issue was raised by the pleadings, the court properly dismissed the complaint.

  6. Schuetz v. GERMAN-AM. Real Est. Co.

    21 App. Div. 163 (N.Y. App. Div. 1897)

    I think the plaintiff was justified in bringing his action in equity for an accounting, as the books were much confused and were kept partly during his term of office and partly during Grosse's term of office as president; and if there were doubt upon the subject, the defendant waived the objection by failing to set it up in its answer ( Le Roy v. Platt, 4 Paige, 77), and that the court having obtained jurisdiction of the action is called upon to administer justice according to the rights of the respective parties. ( Taylor v. Taylor, 43 N.Y. 578.) The stock of this corporation is not shown to have a market value, and it would be difficult for the plaintiff to prove his damages if he were compelled passively to await the illegal sale of his stock and then bring his action for such damages as he might have sustained thereby. If nothing was due upon the assessments levied upon him as a stockholder, his right to hold the stock without interference was clear and unquestionable, and he is entitled to the protection of the court to restrain the forfeiture.