TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Van Wagener v. Royce

Van Wagener v. Royce, 21 N.Y.S. 191 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1892)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
New York Supreme Court · State Trial Courts
Decided
December 12, 1892
Judges
Dykman
Citations
21 N.Y.S. 19150 N.Y. St. Rep. 935
Headnotes
Equity—Enforcement of Contract—Laches. Prior to a foreclosure sale of land plaintiff and defendant’s intestate agreed in writing under seal that the latter should pay to plaintiff and others $3,000 for their interest in the mortgaged property, and that the sale should be postponed; whereupon plaintiff quitclaimed his interest. The property was bought on th.e adjourned day of sale by one of the parties to the agreement, and conveyed to defendant’s intestate, who paid $1,200 to such party, no part ■of which was received by plaintiff, who, after the agreement, had been compelled to pay certain moneys which were by its terms to be paid by defendant’s intestate. Held, that "plaintiff’s seven years’ delay in asserting his claim, which he was not asked to explain, while an unfavorable fact, was not con■clusive against its validity; and, as the mistake of description in plaintiff’s •conveyance, which defendants claimed was a failure of performance on his part, could have been easily corrected so as to include the whole property, the payment to plaintiff would be equitable, and within the meaning of the agreement, and, under the circumstances, the court would not deem the agreement abandoned, but would enforce it in plaintiff’s favor. 19 N. T. Supp. 143, affirmed.
Summary
Motion for reargument. Denied. For decision on appeal, see 19 N. Y. Supp. 143.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Dykman

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

DYKMAN, J.

This is a motion for a reargument of "the appeal of the ■defendants in this action. There is a general statement in the affidavit, •upon which the motion is based, that important facts have been overlooked by this court; but there is no specification of such facts, and we ¿know• of none. On the contrary, the case received a careful examination here, as our opinion will show, and a re-examination has disclosed nothing that was overlooked by us. The motion should be denied, with $10.costs.and disbursements. All concur.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1903: 119032026peak 1903 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Denison v. Shawmut Min. Co.124 F. 860 (1903)

Most recent

  1. Denison v. Shawmut Min. Co.124 F. 860 (1903)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list