Case Name: Benjamin Weintraub, Respondent, v. Gustave E. Kruse, Appellant
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1922-10-27
Citations: 234 N.Y. 575
Docket Number: 
Parties: Benjamin Weintraub, Respondent, v. Gustave E. Kruse, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 234
Pages: 575–576

Head Matter:
Benjamin Weintraub, Respondent, v. Gustave E. Kruse, Appellant.
Contract — specific performance —- real property — when contract to convey real property not void as lacking in mutuality or as too indefinite or ambiguous.
Weintraub v. Kruse, 199 App. Div. 940, affirmed.
(Submitted October 13, 1922;
decided October 27, 1922.)
Appeal, by permission, from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered December 16, 1921, unanimously 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 an alleged contract for the sale of real estate which read as follows:
“ New York, July 9, 1919.
“ Received from Mr. B. Weintraub a check for Two Hundred ($200) Dollars as deposit on house 20 Jerome St., B’klyn., for amount of $11,600.00; first mortgage $5,500.00 and second mortgage $2,500.00, balance $3,600.00 in cash, second mortgage to be paid in instalment of $100.00 semi-annual with interest until paid.
“ GUSTAVE E. KRUSE,
“ BENJAMIN WEINTRAUB.”
Defendant contended that the instrument lacked mutuality and was too indefinite and ambiguous to constitute a binding contract.
Alexander Holtzoff and Paul Windels for appellant.
Isaac Siegmeister for respondent.

Opinion:
Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.
Concur: Hiscock, Ch. J., Hogan, Cardozo, Pound, McLaughlin and Crane, JJ. Dissenting: Andrews, J.