Case Name: COHN-BAER-MYERS & ARONSON CO. v. REALTY TRANSFER CO. et al.
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1907-01-11
Citations: 102 N.Y.S. 122
Docket Number: 
Parties: COHN-BAER-MYERS & ARONSON CO. v. REALTY TRANSFER CO. et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 102
Pages: 122–131

Head Matter:
(117 App. Div. 215)
COHN-BAER-MYERS & ARONSON CO. v. REALTY TRANSFER CO. et al.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
January 11, 1907.)
1. Pleading—Complaint—Theory of Action—Alternative Relief.
To maintain an action in equity on the theory of alternative relief, such relief must be asked against the same defendant or defendants, and not against one defendant if one state of facts be found, and against the other if another state of facts be found.
2. Dismissal and Nonsuit—Misjoinder of Parties.
A complaint stating a cause of action against one defendant will not be dismissed as to'him because stating no cause of action against the other defendants.
[Ed. Note.—For eases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 17, Dismissal and Non-suit, § 95.]
3. Vendos and Purchaser—Assignment of Contract fob Purchase—Action by Vendee Against Assignee—Sufficiency of Complaint.
The complaint of one who, having a contract for purchase of land, assigned it to defendant, with an agreement that, if defendant failed to obtain title to the premises in accordance with the contract without fault on its part, the assignment should be annulled, and any rights passing under it be reassigned to plaintiff, states no cause of action, either to recover profits lost by the contract not being carried out, or for a reassignment of the contract; it not being alleged whether or not the failure of defendant to obtain title was due to its fault.
4. Pleading—Aider of Complaint by Answer:
A complaint is not aided by an allegation of the answer which is denied by the reply.
[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 39, Pleading, §§ 1343-1347.]
Laughlin and Patterson, ,TJ., dissenting in part.
Appeal from Special Term, New York County.
Suit by the Cohn-B aer-Mvers & Aronson Company against the Realty Transfer Company and Mary J. Cunningham. From a judgment entered pursuant to a decision of the court on the trial of the issues, dismissing the amended complaint as against each defendant, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
Argued before PATTERSON, INGRAHAM, LAUGHLIN, CLARKE, and HOUGHTON, JJ.
Edward W. S. Johnston, for appellant.
Benjamin N. Cardoso, for respondent Realty Transfer Company.
Daniel Daly, for respondent Cunningham.

Opinion:
INGRAHAM, J.
I concur with Mr. Justice LAUGHLIN in the opinion that this action cannot be maintained upon the plaintiff's theory of alternative relief, as such an action is only justified where, on the facts stated, a plaintiff would be entitled to the alternative relief demanded against the same defendant or defendants. As I understand it, neither at common law nor under the Code of Civil Procedure can a plaintiff join two defendants upon a claim that he has a right to relief against one or the other of said defendants. Clark v. Lord Rivers, L. R. 5 Eq. Cas. 91. If, however, the complaint alleges facts from which there follows the legal conclusion that the plaintiff is entitled to relief against a defendant named, the complaint can be sustained against the defendant, against whom the plaintiff is entitled to relief, either legal or equitable. But the difficulty with this complaint is that no facts are alleged which show that the plaintiff is entitled to relief against either defendant. _ As against the defendant Cunningham there is no allegation to show that the plaintiff or its assignee would be entitled to a decree for specific performance or that there was a breach of his contract to convey. Nor does the complaint allege facts from which the legal conclusion that the plaintiff is entitled to any relief against the defendant Realty Transfer Company would follow, as it is not alleged that the failure of the Realty Company to obtain title to the property covered by the contract between the plaintiff and defendant Cunningham was or was not the fault of the Realty Company. If the Realty Company without justification refused to take title, the plaintiff would have an action at law to recover its damages as for a breach of a contract; but to sustain such a cause of action a breach must be alleged.
The assignment by the plaintiff to the Realty Company provides that, 'should the Realty Transfer Company fail to obtain title to the aforesaid premises in accordance with the aforesaid agreement, without fault on the part of the said Realty Transfer Company, then this assignment shall be canceled and annulled, and any interest or rights passing hereunder shall be 'reassigned and retransferred to" the plaintiff ; and it was upon this contingency that the plaintiff was to return the $4,000 paid on the execution of the contract to the Realty Company. The plaintiff alleges no facts that would justify a judgment for a reassignment of this contract by the Realty Transfer Company or justify a specific preference of that agreement, as it fails to allege that the Realty Transfer Company failed to obtain title to the premises without fault on its part. It is quite clear that the complaint was not framed upon any such theory, as no demand for such reassignment was made, and there is no offer to pay the $4,000, nor is it tendered by the complaint. While it may be that a tender before the commencement of the action is not essential to maintain an action in equity, when a party entitled to an assignment or conveyance of property upon the payment of a sum of money comes into court to enforce that right, the complaint must at least offer to pay the amount payable upon the transfer asked for.
Recognizing the liberal rule of pleading prevalent in this state, to which Mr. Justice LAUGHLIN calls atention, I still think that, to entitle the plaintiff to relief either at law or in equity, the complaint must state facts from which the legal conclusion follows that the plaintiff is entitled to some relief; and the complaint in this case failing to state such facts, the action could not be maintained. The allegation in the answer of the defendant Realty Company, which in substance alleges that the defendant Cunningham could not convey a marketable title to the property contracted to be conveyed, is an allegation made as a basis for affirmative relief against the plaintiff by the defendant Realty Company; and the plaintiff, by the reply, denied this allegation. The plaintiff cannot sustain a cause of action upon an allegation in an answer of a defendant which he specifically denied by the reply. I think the condition of the pleadings at the trial justified the court in dismissing the complaint as against both defendants.
The judgment appealed from should be affirmed, with costs.
CLARKE and HOUGHTON, JJ., concur.