From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Pollack v. Viele

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 24, 1948
273 App. Div. 871 (N.Y. App. Div. 1948)

Opinion

February 24, 1948.

Present — Lewis, P.J., Carswell, Johnston, Adel and Sneed, JJ. [See post, p. 910.]


In an action for specific performance of a contract for the sale of real property, order and judgment (one paper) granting plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and decreeing that defendant-appellant perform the contract and convey the property to plaintiff, and severing the action as to other defendants, unanimously affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. Appellant and respondent were not contract vendees from the same vendor within the provisions of section 294 Real Prop. of the Real Property Law. Appellant, who had actual knowledge of respondent's prior contract of purchase and claimed rights thereunder before payment of and acceptance of conveyance under his own contract, was not a bona fide purchaser as to respondent. ( Wheeler v. Standard Oil Co., 263 N.Y. 34; Page v. Waring, 76 N.Y. 463; Macauley v. Smith, 132 N.Y. 524; Wright-Blodgett Co. v. United States, 236 U.S. 397, 404; 66 C.J., Vendor and Purchaser, § 1037.)


Summaries of

Pollack v. Viele

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 24, 1948
273 App. Div. 871 (N.Y. App. Div. 1948)
Case details for

Pollack v. Viele

Case Details

Full title:HARRY S. POLLACK, Respondent, v. CYNTHIA K. VIELE et al., Defendants, and…

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

Date published: Feb 24, 1948

Citations

273 App. Div. 871 (N.Y. App. Div. 1948)

Citing Cases

Flushing Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn. v. Kapner

(Schultz & Son v. Nelson, 256 N.Y. 473, 476.) It would have protected the vendees only if it had been the…

Matter of De Stuers

In no event is there a need to revest the property in him, as he has never parted therewith. Indication of…