From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Emerick v. Hackett

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
May 19, 1908
84 N.E. 805 (N.Y. 1908)

Opinion

Argued April 22, 1908

Decided May 19, 1908

D.P. Morehouse for appellant. James T. Clark for respondent.


We think the judgment of the trial court erroneous in having required the defendant to convey the lands by a "warranty deed." The contract of the parties was that the plaintiff should "have the privilege of buying the farm" of the defendant for $3,000, and it contained no provision for any covenants, or as to the form of the deed, upon the privilege being availed of. It was early settled in this state that in such cases the vendor was only bound to deliver a deed sufficient in law to pass the title. ( Van Eps v Mayor, etc., of Schenectady, 12 Johns. 442; Ketchum v. Evertson, 13 ib. 359; Gazley v. Price, 16 ib. 267.)

As this farm was found to have been free from any liens or incumbrances at the time of the contract, it was proper to direct the defendant to convey it free from any such.

The judgment should be modified by striking therefrom the word "warranty," and as so modified should be affirmed, without costs in this court to either party.

CULLEN, Ch. J., GRAY, VANN, WERNER, WILLARD BARTLETT, HISCOCK and CHASE, JJ., concur.

Judgment accordingly.


Summaries of

Emerick v. Hackett

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
May 19, 1908
84 N.E. 805 (N.Y. 1908)
Case details for

Emerick v. Hackett

Case Details

Full title:FREDERICK A. EMERICK, Respondent, v . MARY E. HACKETT, Appellant

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: May 19, 1908

Citations

84 N.E. 805 (N.Y. 1908)
84 N.E. 805

Citing Cases

Tymon v. Linoki

Since Bostwick v. Beach ( supra) was handed down, several cases have raised a similar issue and have…

House v. Hornburg

Delavan v. Duncan ( 49 N.Y. 485, 487) makes this clear. Van Eps v. Corporation of Schenectady ( supra) is…