Cooper v. Polayes, 81034
| Decision Date | 29 March 1955 |
| Docket Number | No. 81034,81034 |
| Citation | 113 A.2d 599,19 Conn.Supp. 353 |
| Court | Connecticut Superior Court |
| Parties | David COOPER et al., Executors (Estate of Max Y. Lipsher) et al. v. Dora POLAYES. |
John N. Reynolds, New Haven, for plaintiffs.
Nelson Harris, New Haven, for defendant.
On October 29, 1954, Max Y. Lipsher entered into a contract with the defendant to purchase the property known as 13 Hallock Street in the city of New Haven. A deposit of $300 was paid and the transaction was to be completed on or before December 1 at the office of Clark, Hall and Peck. On November 10 he died leaving a will, duly admitted to probate, in which the plaintiffs David Cooper and Barney Fineberg were named as executors and the other plaintiffs as the heirs at law. On December 1 the plaintiffs attempted to carry out the terms of the agreement but the defendant refused to convey and this action resulted.
Defendant has demurred to the action, claiming specific performance does not lie because the agreement was not one which inured to the benefit of the heirs and it was 'insufficient to comply with the statute of frauds' as it did not set forth it was binding upon them, the words 'heirs and assigns' being omitted.
Specific performance of a contract to convey real estate is a well-recognized remedy and will generally be granted unless to do so would be unjust, oppressive, or otherwise inequitable. Sidor v. Kravec, 135 Conn. 571, 66 A.2d 812; 81 C.J.S., Specific Performance, § 63, p. 557. And this applies to the vendee as well as the vendor. 8 Thompson, Real Property, § 4633; 81 C.J.S., Specific Performance, § 36, p. 500.
It is well recognized that it is within both the power and the duty of a personal representative to complete the performance of those contracts entered into by the decedent which do not terminate at the latter's death. But it is also a general rule of common law that an executor or administrator has no interest in or rights concerning the decedent's real estate, which descends directly to the heirs, subject only to the right of the personal representative to take the property for the satisfaction of creditors, in case the personal estate is insufficient.
Under the doctrine of equitable conversion, based upon the maxim that equity regards as done that which ought to be done, the purchaser of land under an executory contract is regarded as the owner, subject to the vendor's lien for the unpaid purchase price, and the vendor holds the legal title in trust for the purchaser. 55 Am.Jur. 782. The vendor's interest...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. 74.05 Acres of Land
...Ide, 109 Conn. 307, 147 A. 4 (1929), whereas the purchaser's interest is in the land and is treated as realty. Cooper v. Polayes, 19 Conn.Supp. 353, 354-55, 113 A.2d 599 (1955). According to Plaintiff, the equitable interest the Claimant received via the Purchase and Sale Agreement is insuf......
-
Estate of Ventling, Matter of
...flows from the maxim that "equity regards and treats as done what, in good conscience, ought to be done." Cooper v. Polayes, 19 Conn.Supp. 353, 113 A.2d 599 (1955); Problems do arise in those jurisdictions espousing the theory of equitable conversion if the judgment is obtained against the ......
-
Society for Sav. v. Bragg
...]; while the purchaser's interest is in the land and is treated as realty. 18 C.J.S. 49 [, Conversion § 9]." Cooper v. Polayes, 19 Conn.Sup. 353, 354-55, 113 A.2d 599 (1955). See also Lanna v. Greene, 175 Conn. 453, 461, 399 A.2d 837 (1978) ("Under the doctrine of equitable conversion a con......
-
Grossman v. Commissioner
...of the State of Connecticut, such contractual right was enforceable and a valuable property right. See Cooper v. Polayes, 19 Conn. Sup. 353, 113 A. 2d 599 (Conn. Superior Ct. 1955). Under the indemnity agreement, Sidney had the authority to obligate the Grossman family group, but under the ......