The New York herald., 1878-02-24
THE COURTS.
Validity Of Verbal Agreements in Real
Estate Transactions.
THE LOPEZ MARRIAGE.
A New Point as to Prosecuting
Divorce Suits.

Ex-Collector Thomas Murphy, In 1872, sold to ex-
Judge William Fullerton thirty three lots near the
Boulevard in the vicinity OF 13sth street. The price
liked Tor the lots was S.O0o Mr. Fullerton assum-
Ing eight mortgages amounting to $4,000 As will
De seen by tho account given below. this purchase
not altogether after the usual style Of largo pur-
chases Of real estate In this city, with all the agree
ments carefully written out, but based consider
able extent upon a verbal agreement between these
swo gentlemen. Among the mortgages assumed by
Judge Fullerton one amounting to 81, ,940 10
William DevIin, who recently began q foreclosure
suit asking as part OF his relief that Mr. Fullerton be
held personally responsible for any deficiency. There
was considerable testimony taken In the case in q
trial before Judge Van Worst, in Supreme Court
Special Term. Judge Fullerton stated that Mr..
Murphy told him that he (Murphy) was carrying too
much real estate that he desired dispose of It, and
would like him to purchase some OF It, Some OF the
testimony OF Mr. Fullerton given in this connection is
z You have hoard stated facts as to the Devlin
mortgage for 81 $40 on property on 18TH stroea A.
@ wish you to state what transpired between
yourself and Thomas Murphy at the time when you
Angus. 20. 1877 Of Thomas Murphy to- yourself.
A. Mr Murphy went on to describe the real
Estate he had tor sale was dslncl:ned to iOrscose
and SO expressed myself he then made out a pro-
gramme OF lots-l think thirty-three in number /
liked p.ice to them, sl0s, 000 Ho said IL j would
twenty thousand dollars in cash and second mortgages
ior the difference between the purchase money ana
the amount paid ana the first mortgages. that he
would agree 10 tako back the properly at
any time within three years, reimburse me
for what had paid out for any parpose
Whatever and rcinstate mo as was first | did
not make much OF reply 10 his proposition except
say thnt did not know anything about real and
was disncliued TO purchase. He kept up the CONVEX
sation and said II would be odaton to him
10 have those second mortgages, because he could
raise money upon them and use them for his pur.
poses Tho conversation kept on until he said II
would take the conveyance of that property az he
proposed, dor the amount he proposed, that ut any
time thereafter he would take back the property upon
tno terms and conditions that have already stated
Murphy, at that time. was man OF large wealth and
no stated 10 ME, 'you don't want any better invest
ment OF your money than that" sads no, that was
good investment OF money, Of course, II got prin-
cipal and interest and all and taxes and
assessments, and agreed to do It, ! aid not look as
me property law.
q. The arrangement between you and Mr. Murphy
was wholly verbalp A. II was; u was never put in
writing because Mr.. Murphy was a man OF large
wealth. ana man who never failed In carrying out
bis word.
Mr. Murphy in his testimony corroborated tho
statements as to tho verbal agreement. Judge Van
Vorst upon their testimony decided the case yester
day. He holds that as the covenant only between
Mr. Fullerton and Mr. Murphy, subject to u verbal
agreement, Mr. Murphy alone could OBJECT to Its not
being In writing; and tnas the having been
carried out by Mr. Murphy, the plaintiff oDtainea no
rights other than those OF the agreement in It's
trety The complaint against Mr.. Fullerton Is accord
lngly dismissed.