The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1870-12-24
SUPREME C0uaT-cl!AHsraS.
Important Ia Real Estate Owners.
Before Judge Barnard.


The following which IS the substance OF an opinion
lust given by Judge Barnard III the Supreme Court,
VIII he read with interest by real estate owners:-
FL za5efh W3tey rs. Caateron W. Hopper @ 0L--
TINS IL motion to compel purchasers III a referees
SAFE IN partilion 10 complete then purchases. The
facts are stated III tic opinion oil ne Court
Judge Barnard AT referees sale In parti-
ton among the heirs OF one cnares Hopper OF cer-
lam real estate siluaIcd on Houston, Mott and
Elizabeth streets In me city OF New York, Terence
Farley and others became purchasers OF different
parces the property, On objection to title taken
b, their counsel an oder OF re, efance was made by
this Court to referee 10 take proofs respecting the
validity OF the THE Of Tie parties 10 SAID action 70
said several parcels.
Proofs takea on such reference are returned with
the report and 10 the fcport oi the referee that by
the deed Of he referee hy Ynon TIE sale was made
a sufficient ute woad pass exceptions have been
nlsi by tue purchasers TO 50 mucA OF said eX-
ceutons MS relates 10 the encuIaDrapee3 on some OF
the SHARES Of The parties TO the action, the answer
Is that the purchasers VIII be abundant.y protected
10y a direction 30 the referee by whom The premises
were sold 10 cause them TO be satisfied IRON the
proceeds OF SAFE. From the proofs returned with
the report IL satisfactorily appea tna far as tue
premises purchased by these directors are conce
ed, Charles Hopper, a. the time Of his ueath, under
6! claim TO own The same IN Zee sniple, had been
in possession thereof lor AT least thirty years,
ana occupied by hD or dis tenants without moleSta.
non. There Is netting III HE evl ece taken before
the referee ending 10 show mat there were or are
any ADVERSE claimants VINO, by reason or any dis
ability could Interfere with his title II appears,
also, that 10 d vefy great extent record rltlc Is
saoWn in Hopper or his giautors, ana one deed for
IRON the record constituted one o. the grounds OF
ouleclIol, was produced and Its execution proven,
anu the same - returned as on Of the exhibits an
neXed or appended 70 his report. It is rue, how
ever, that there are Inks In the CHAM of con-
yeyances, anteceient 10 Inc ume tnat Hopper ac-
CURED his title, which are wanting. Uuder these
circumstances IL is urged by The purchasers coun-
sci that The title OF Hopper Is what Is called q
p0ssesSory one and they INSIST thai they should he
released from their bid. | do not Junk such q clam
eau he sustained. The Court Will n Z compel q pup
CHASER 10 accept uoubLu title IL urged that
nj alIaI
on parpl evidence, purchaser should not be com
PEELED 10 take, where the va idity OF the title de-
ponds on matter OF iact. That, however, Is true of
every title TO grcater on less degree.
/ think that Ii this were private sale the title
proved would be suliicieub 10 maintain bill for
specific performance, and that under he authorities
here ana IN England, 1t would constitute good
marketable title. Tne exceptions are oVerrleo, and
order VIII he entered directing purchasers to
complete, and requiring The referee from the pro-
cceds OF sale TO SATISFY the specific liens reported
lie shares mentioned. TDe and expenses
or the purchasers, under the rcumsiances OF tnis
Case. think should be allowed them IRON the lund
Ill the hands vi tile referee.