Case Name: BEATTIE v. BURT et ux.
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1907-11-29
Citations: 107 N.Y.S. 153
Docket Number: 
Parties: BEATTIE v. BURT et ux.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 107
Pages: 153–156

Head Matter:
(122 App. Div. 473.)
BEATTIE v. BURT et ux.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.
November 29, 1907.)
Specific Performance—Contracts Enforceable—Inability to Perform.
In an action for the specific performance of a contract by a husband and wife to convey land, proof that the husband authorized a broker to sell it, who made the contract with plaintiff, in the absence of like authority from the wife, is insufficient, since the husband alone could not convey the land, and, where there is inability to perform, specific performance will not be decreed.
[Ed. Note.—For cases in. point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 44, Specific Performance, § 33.]
Hooker, J., dissenting.
Appeal from Special Term, Kings County.
Action by Matthew Beattie against Willis B. Burt and wife. From a judgment of dismissal, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
Argued before JENKS, HOOKER, RICH, MIEEER, and GAY-NOR, JJ.
Thomas H. McKee, for appellant.
Ackerly & Miles, for respondents.

Opinion:
GAYNOR, J.
This is a suit by the purchaser for specific performance of a contract to sell real estate. The complaint alleges that the defendants are man and wife, and that they are the owners in fee of the land in question, but whether by the entireties or as tenants in common is not alleged. The answer does not deny this allegation. The complaint alleges that the defendants made a written contract of sale of the land to the plaintiff, and that they refuse to perform. The allegation of the contract is denied by the answer. The contract when put in evidence proved to be by one Donnocker to sell the land to the plaintiff. It does not mention the defendants or purport to bind them. The plaintiff introduced oral evidence, however, tending to show that the husband authorized Donnocker to sell the land as broker. There was no evidence that the wife gave him any authority. At the close of the plaintiff's evidence the court therefore dismissed the complaint as to the wife on her motion. It then dismissed the complaint as to the husband on his motion. This was not error. The complaint was for the specific performance of a contract by the husband and the wife to convey the land, and there was a failure of proof of such a contract. The contract proved was that of the husband alone to convey the land. It was impossible for him to convey it; he could only convey his undivided share; and the rule in a case of inability to perform is that specific performance will not be decreed. Pomeroy on Specific Performance, § 293.
As no point is made of the failure of the learned trial judge to make findings of fact that question of practice need not be considered. '
The judgment should be affirmed.
Judgment affirmed, with costs. All concur, except HOOICBR, J., who dissents.