Hasbrouck v. Van Winkle
| Decision Date | 29 July 1942 |
| Citation | 289 N.Y. 595,43 N.E.2d 723 |
| Parties | J. Roswell HASBROUCK, Respondent, v. Howard E. VAN WINKLE et al., Appellants. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, 261 App.Div. 679, 27 N.Y.S.2d 72.
Action by J. Roswell Hasbrouck against Howard E. Van Winkle and another to foreclose a mortgage. After some discussion an agreement was reached whereby plaintiff was to convey property to defendants for $1,600 on condition that the purchase price should be only $600 if defendants within ten years after transfer of title should erect a house thereon at a cost of not less than $7,000. The evidence disclosed that plaintiff believed that the remainder of its farm would be enhanced in value for residential purposes by the erection of a $7,000 house. At the time the defendants had no home of their own. Thereafter plaintiff delivered to defendants a deed to the property and received from them a check for the amount due. At the same time defendants executed a mortgage and delivered it to the plaintiff. In the mortgage the defendants acknowledged that they were indebted to plaintiff in the sum of $1,000. The mortgage also recited that it was given as an inducement for the conveyance of the property and as security for the erection of a dwelling house and that it was to be void if defendants erected on the property within ten years a house costing not less than $7,000. The mortgage also provided that if defendants failed to construct such house, there should be due thereunder $1,000.
The defendants breached their contract by failing to erect a house within the specified time and also defaulted in payment of the mortgage whereupon the action was instituted. The defenses were that the plaintiff waived compliance with the provisions of the mortgage and hence was estopped from claiming a breach and also that the mortgage was void in that it provided for a penalty.
From a judgment of the Appellate Division, Third Department, 261 App.Div. 679, 27 N.Y.S.2d 72, reversing a judgment which dismissed the complaint, the defendants appeal.
Affirmed.
Judgment affirmed, with costs.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bradford v. New York Times Co.
...one performance or another. Hasbrouck v. Van Winkle, 261 App.Div. 679, 27 N.Y.S.2d 72 (3d Dep't 1941), aff'd without opinion, 289 N.Y. 595, 43 N.E.2d 723 (1942). We do not construe this contract to be of this category. Bradford promised only to avoid competing and to hold himself ready for ......
-
Jarro Bldg. Industries Corp. v. Schwartz
...decisions. (Gobble v. Linder, 76 Ill. 157.)' (Hasbrouck v. Van Winkle, 261 App.Div. 679, 681, 27 N.Y.S.2d 72, 75, affd. 289 N.Y. 595, 43 N.E.2d 723.) If appellant here could recover both liquidated damages and actual damages, there would be no question that the 'liquidated damages' provisio......
-
Rubinstein v. Rubinstein
...* The other two cases cited by the majority below, Hasbrouck v. Van Winkle (261 App.Div. 679, 682, 27 N.Y.S.2d 72, 76, affd. 289 N.Y. 595, 43 N.E.2d 723) and City of New York v. Seely-Taylor Co. (149 App.Div. 98, 133 N.Y.S. 808, affd. 208 N.Y. 548, 101 N.E. 1098) are inapposite, since forme......
-
Rubinstein v. Rubinstein
...Such an arrangement is not at odds with authority. Hasbrouck v. Van Winkle, 261 App.Div. 679, 682, 27 N.Y.S.2d 72, 75, aff'd 289 N.Y. 595, 43 N.E.2d 723. See also, 49 Am.Jur., pp. 57--58, § 43, Spec. Perf.; City of New York v. Seely-Taylor Co., 149 App.Div. 98, 133 N.Y.S. 808 (First Dep't 1......