Case ID: ny_215/html/0683-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

James M. Scofield, Respondent, v. Mary E. Powers, Appellant.
    (Argued May 13, 1915;
    decided June 1, 1915.)
    
      Scofield v. Powers, 156 App. Div. 946, affirmed.
    Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered June 4, 1913, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term in an action to compel specific performance of a contract to exchange real estate. The defense was, in substance, that the contract lacked mutuality because of a clause in relation to the plaintiff only having an executory contract of sale of the One Hundred and Fourteenth street premises; that Edward J. Welling, a broker, was the real party in interest in the action, for whom the plaintiff was alleged to be a mere figurehead, acting in Welling’s interest; and that, therefore, specific performance should not be decreed as against defendant; that certain notices of violations of municipal ordinances constituted a defect in the title, and that the extension agreement in relation to a mortgage was insufficient to extend it legally. ■ .
    
      Milton S. Hoffman for appellant.
    
      George H. laylor, Jr., and George IV. Simpson for respondent.
   Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Willard Bartlett, Ch. J., Hiscock, Chase, Cuddeback, Hogan, Miller and Seabury, JJ.