Butler v. Wright
| Citation | 78 N.E. 1002,186 N.Y. 259 |
| Parties | BUTLER v. WRIGHT. |
| Decision Date | 26 October 1906 |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
Action by George P. Butler against Richard H. Wright. From an order of the Appellate Division (93 N. Y. Supp. 113), reversing a judgment for plaintiff entered on the report of a referee, and granting a new trial, plaintiff appeals. Reversed, and judgment entered on the report of the referee. Affirmed.
Werner, J., dissenting.Charles F. Mathewson, for appellant.
Delos McCurdy, for respondent.
This action was brought to compel the specific performance of a contract for the purchase and sale of stock. The contract upon which the action is based was to the effect that the plaintiff agreed to procure and turn over to the defendant all of the capital stock of the Economy Packing Company, a New Jersey corporation, and that the defendant agreed to pay therefor by delivering to the plaintiff 500 shares of the capital stock of the Wright's Automatic Tobacco Packing Machine Company, a West Virginia corporation.
The chief question of fact litigated upon the trial was the alleged false and fraudulent representations made by the plaintiff to the defendant, by which he was induced to enter into the contract. But this issue was found by the referee in favor of the plaintiff, thus disposing of that branch of the case so far as this court is concerned. The complaint further alleged, in substance, and the referee has found as facts, that the stock of the Wright Company had never been listed on any exchange, or had any quoted value or any definite market price, or any certain value capable of exact ascertainment; that the defendant was the owner of at least 92 per cent. fo the stock, and controlled the balance. Upon these facts the referee found that the plaintiff had no adequate remedy at law, and therefore ordered specific performance of the contract. To these conclusions, appropriate exceptions were taken by the defendant. The Appellate Division has reversed the judgment entered upon the report of the referee and ordered a new trial. The order of reversal does not specify the ground; and, therefore, under section 1338 of the Code of Civil Procedure, we are required to presume that the judgment was not reversed or the new trial granted upon a question of fact.
It will be observed that the agreement which the plaintiff seeks to have specifically performed was in its character executory, and that, upon its breach, the plaintiff had the right to resort to such remedy as the law afforded, and the question now arises as to whether a court of equity should entertain jurisdiction and compel specific performance, or whether he should be remitted to a court at law to recover the damages which he has sustained. The rule is that, as to contracts pertainingto personal property, a party should be confined...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McMillan, Ltd. v. Warrior Drilling and Engineering Co., Inc.
...property, is not readily ascertainable does not render the remedy at law inadequate; was later and again considered in Butler v. Wright, 186 N.Y. 259, 78 N.E. 1002, 1003, by the Court of Appeals, and was reversed upon the ground that it was impossible to say as a matter of law that the fact......
-
General Securities Corporation v. Welton
...property, is not readily ascertainable does not render the remedy at law inadequate; was later and again considered in Butler v. Wright, 186 N.Y. 259, 78 N.E. 1002, 1003, by the Court of Appeals, and was reversed upon the that it was impossible to say as a matter of law that the facts prove......
-
Lusker v. Tannen
...or in cases where it is apparent that compensation in damages would not furnish a complete and adequate remedy." (Butler v. Wright, 186 N.Y. 259, 261-262, 78 N.E. 1002.) This is such a case. It is obvious that the sole purpose of the contract, which speaks of the sale in terms of a real est......
-
Anderson-Tully Company v. Gillett Lumber Company
...37 P. 39; 3 Ark. 383; 5 Price 325; 1 Sim. & St. 607; 25 N.J.Eq. 265; 14 Wis. 693; 17 Ga. 177; 13 A. 625. The present rule is stated in 78 N.E. 1002. injunction should have been granted. 91 Ark. 171. The court erred in dissolving it. 95 Ark. 571; 113 Id. 325. T. J. Mohen and John L. Ingram, ......