The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1899-11-25
SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE.
PotoshinSsy Wants Property on North
Main and 0lney Streets.
MI. Smith Says Contract Was Broken and
Estate Mas Sold 10 GerileS

There was "A hearing before Mr. JUS
tice Tnlinghasl in the appeliate divls-
ion OF The Supreme court this mornins'
on "a petition for temporary Injunc-
tion I'm the equity proceedings begun
by Lpman Po,orshnsky against Henry
A. smith and Joseph and Samuel Gertz'
The bill seeks specific performance "i
contract for the sale of property "a.
the corner of North Main and OIney
streets. Mr. Potoshinsky claims Smith
agreed to sell him the property Tor
10000, ana h paid $1,000 in hash the p'l-
auce 20 be paid from time % time thd1
Doe entered into fun and abs Jlutr pos
session OF the property and has since
had possession. that ne has made many
valuable improvement. on tEc p"Pti
49,. paid large sums of money ON tne
purchase price. The complahaht say
he does not know lust how much Is Que
ou the property but that he is Wiillhs
90 pay the same. II Is further chAfsru
that Smith cOnspired with the RESPOND
,lt. Gertz, To deprive Potu-hinskE
any benefit under the agreemeh dH"
sale originally made.
Mr. Rice of Vincent a Rice. counsel
for respondents said enc motion Tor a
temporary injunction Nas opposed p,
cause liltlt "a tr no fhblAN iAi ~. F'''-
u contained a misstatcm nt otfacts ana
Ieft out material facts in regard TO the
relations between the cOmplaindnt ana
The respondent Counsel denied taole
was any fraud ou the part ol MI
Smith oV any conspiracy beiWcen Smlth
and the GertZes.
Mr. Smith was sworn and tcstihed
that Potoshinsky came TO him with Il
broker about Nov. 2S, 1892. ana spoke
about The purchase of the property.
Witness agreed 10 sell the estate tos
SdjO0 plus brokerage. or the purchase
money $1,000 was 90 be paid and the re-
mainder was 90 be secured by mort
gage. No mortgage WAS ever maze oM-
ing 20 the absenc, of complainant
wife, who was To- return soon with mon
cy. Witness also testified that as Mrs.
Potoshnsky did not return ana tn"
property was losing tenants and rent
and water and tax rates not being pald
he Smith. got uneasy about his Sc
curity so there was talk or new con-
tract
AS "a result of this talk Smith testified
the old contract was cancelled by the
striking out of the names signed To the
first contract. Possession of the proper
ty was returned. witness said, 10 him
ana Witnss IS got the keys OF PotoshinS-
Ky and told the tenants ne, witness,
lad taken pOSSeSSlOn. \ new foiNlldth
was made by which Mr.. POtOshinsky
was To have three years To pay off the
incumberances on the property. This
new contract was made ON Nov. II,
1896, and as its provisions were not COM
piled with witness took possession of
the property ana sold It 10 the Gerizes.
Mr.. Smith said the Gertzes agreed
TO pay $3.50 for the property. This was
-utrt fe++-4+44e-a-t Pc
toshinsky owed MIN OF the amount
named as the purchase price Smith
said that GertZ gave a mortgage for
50, 800 and for 800 of the balanceon un-
secured pr0missory note was given.
The Gertz brothers said they knew
OF no claim Potoshinsky had on the
property when they bought 1t. Potos-
hinsky was about when they took pos
session but a-id nothing. The wit
nesses on CROSS examination said they
took quitclaim deed OF the property
and depended cn Mr.. Smiths state
ment about the tatle.
Mrs. Bessie Feinstein. daughter Of the
complainant, testified that her father
built cottage on the disputed prem
ises that cost over $1,000 and also a
barn. Arrangements had been made
for the payment of Smith i'm full before
sale TO GertZ brothers.
The case was taken under consirer-
alton.