In De Herques v. Marti (85 N.Y. 609) the person estopped had formally declared that she did not own the house subsequently sold.
Summary of this case from Hey v. CollmanSubmitted March 10, 1881
Decided April 19, 1881
Coudert Brothers for appellant.
Will. Man for respondent.
FOLGER, Ch. J., reads for affirmance.
All concur.
Judgment affirmed.
In De Herques v. Marti (85 N.Y. 609) the person estopped had formally declared that she did not own the house subsequently sold.
Summary of this case from Hey v. CollmanFull title:ANA RIVAS DE HERQUES, Appellant, v . CARLOS MARTI, as Executor, etc.…
Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Date published: Apr 19, 1881
The enforcement of this principle in no way contravenes the statute that requires title or interest in real…
People v. FooteUnder the theory of estoppel, the Statute of Frauds is not a defense. ( De Herques v. Marti, 85 N.Y. 609,…