Weinstein v. Weber
Citation | 70 N.E. 115,178 N.Y. 94 |
Parties | WEINSTEIN v. WEBER. |
Decision Date | 15 March 1904 |
Court | New York Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
Action by Rachel Weinstein against Joseph Weber. From a judgment of the Appellate Division (81 N. Y. Supp. 62) affirming a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
The plaintiff sued to compel the defendant specifically to perform his agreement to convey a clear title to certain real estate, as demanded by the terms of a contract between them, or for the recovery back of the moneys paid by plaintiff upon the contract. The objection had been made to the title of the defendant that it was defective and unmarketable. The source of the title was in Adolphus Brown, to whom and to Felix Brown, his brother, simpliciter conveyances covering the premises in question had been made, as tenants in common. Adolphus Brown died in 1875, leaving a widow, Walli Brown, formerly Walli Goetz, and three minor children, between whom his will disposed of his residuary estate by the following clauses, viz.:
The will was proved as a will of personal property, only, and in 1876 the executors undertook to convey to Felix Brown the undivided interest in the premises owned by their testator, and it is out of the deed, which was delivered, that the difficulty in the defendant's title has arisen. Walli Goetz, named as a residuary legatee, in the will, subsequently to its execution married the testator, and, with her two children by a former marriage, survived him. She had no children by marriage with Brown. One of her children, a daughter, is still living, as Mrs. Bain, and Max Goetz, the other, died before his mother, leaving a daughter named Julia, a minor. Mrs. Brown died in 1897. Upon the deed of the executors to Felix Brown were indorsed the following instruments:
At a date subsequent to the execution and delivery of this deed, the three children of the testator, Adolphus Brown, executed to the grantee, Felix Brown, conveyances of their interests in the premises, and he thereafter conveyed to this defendant. After this last conveyance, and at the time of the trial of this action, the defendant received from Mrs. Bain, the daughter mentioned of Walli Goetz, a release of her interest in the premises affected. That still left outstanding what interest may be in Julia, the daughter of Max, the son of Walli Goetz, mentioned as having predeceased her. It was held by the trial court that Max Goetz became vested upon the death of Adolphus Brown with one undivided half part of the remainder in two-ninths of the premises, after the expiration of the widow's life estate, and, as the defendant had never obtained a release of that interest from Max's daughter and heir at law, Julia, that his title is, to that extent,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Deacon v. St. Louis Union Trust Company
...501, 54 A. 305; Conn. T. & S.D. Co. v. Hollister, 74 Conn. 228, 50 A. 750; Codman v. Brigham, 187 Mass. 309, 72 N.E. 1008; Weinstein v. Weber, 178 N.Y. 94, 70 N.E. 115.] Nor there any question that equitable estates are subject to the rule against perpetuities. As in legal estates, it must ......
-
Sarlls v. State ex rel. Trimble
...unless he shows that some right of his own is thereby impaired or prejudiced (Tomlinson v. Bainaka et al. [1904] 163 Ind. 112, 119, 70 N. E. 115;State v. Gerhardt [1896] 145 Ind. 439, 450, 44 N. E. 469, 33 L. R. A. 313; Currier et al. v. Elliott [1895] 141 Ind. 394, 407, 38 N. E. 556); and ......
-
Ruby v. Bishop, 4593.
...his power. Barnard v. Moore, 71 Colo. 401, 207 P. 332; Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Shipman, 119 N.Y. 324, 24 N.E. 177; Weinstein v. Weber, 178 N.Y. 94, 70 N.E. 115; Lardner v. Williams, 98 Wis. 514, 74 N.W. 346; Phillips v. Brown, 16 R.I. 279, 15 A. 90; Lister v. Lister, 47 R.I. 366, 133 A. 437......
-
Deacon v. St. Louis Union Trust Co.
...Conn. T. & S. Dep. Co., 74 Conn. 228, 50 Atl. 750; Codman v. Brigham, 187 Mass. 309, 72 N. E. 1008, 105 Am. St. Rep. 394; Weinstein v. Weber, 178 N. Y. 94, 70 N. E. 115. Nor is there any question that equitable estates are subject to the rule against perpetuities. As in legal estates, it mu......