Di Niscia v. Olsey
| Decision Date | 24 April 1914 |
| Citation | 162 A.D. 154,147 N.Y.S. 198 |
| Parties | WILLIAM DI NISCIA, Respondent, v. ALEXANDRINE OLSEY, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court |
APPEAL by the defendant, Alexandrine Olsey, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiff, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Westchester on the 28th day of March, 1913, upon the decision of the court after a trial at the Westchester Special Term.
Michael J. Tierney [John F. Lambden with him on the brief], for the appellant.
Humphrey J. Lynch, for the respondent.
The Special Term found that the plaintiff and defendant agreed that plaintiff would improve the premises of the defendant with the understanding that the parties would then intermarry, and at that time the defendant would convey a one-half interest therein to the plaintiff for use as their home; that the plaintiff made such improvements and expended incidental moneys, and advanced moneys to meet interest charges on an incumbrance, but that thereafter the defendant so conducted herself as to render it impossible for the parties to intermarry, excluded the plaintiff from the premises and failed to convey any part of them to the plaintiff. Thereupon, and upon such findings only, the court impressed a trust on the premises and directed a sale thereof in satisfaction of the plaintiff's claim.
The respondent would maintain this judgment on the theory of equitable lien. The difficulty in the way of affirmance is that proof of a breach of the contract only does not warrant this decree of the equity court. There should also appear proof that clearly established the intention that the premises would 'be held, given or transferred as security for the obligation' of the contract. (Pom. Eq. Juris. [3d ed.] § 1235; 19 Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law [2d ed.], 15; Wright v. Ellison, 1 Wall. 16.) In the cases cited by the learned counsel for the respondent there is such proof, which is lacking in the case at bar.
The judgment must be reversed and a new trial must be granted, with costs to abide the final award of costs.
Judgment reversed and new trial granted, costs to abide the final award of costs.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wiltse v. Schaeffer
...circumstances. Strict proof of such intention is required. As was said in the case of Di Niscia v. Olsey, 162 App.Div. 154, 155, 147 N.Y.S. 198: ‘The respondent would maintain this judgment on the theory of equitable lien. The difficulty in the way of affirmance is that proof of a breach of......
-
Wiltse v. Schaeffer, 11
...language and the attendant circumstances. Strict proof of such intention is required. As was said in the case of Di Niscia v. Olsey, 162 App.Div. 154, 155, 147 N.Y.S. 198: 'The respondent would maintain this judgment on the theory of equitable lien. The difficulty in the way of affirmance i......
-
Teichman by Teichman v. Community Hosp. of Western Suffolk
...property" (James v. Alderton Dock Yards, 256 N.Y. 298, 303, 176 N.E. 401, rearg. denied 256 N.Y. 681, 177 N.E. 191; Di Niscia v. Olsey, 162 App.Div. 154, 147 N.Y.S. 198). The agreement "must deal with some particular property either by identifying it or by so describing it that it can be id......
-
Datlof v. Turetsky
...N.E. 401, rearg. denied 256 N.Y. 681, 177 N.E. 191; Thorne Real Estate v. Nezelek, 100 A.D.2d 651, 473 N.Y.S.2d 82; Di Niscia v. Olsey, 162 App.Div. 154, 147 N.Y.S. 198). It is equally well settled that an agreement, either by parol or in writing, to pay a debt out of a designated fund does......