Case Name: William E. D. Stokes, Appellant, v. Orlando T. Carpenter et al., as Executors and Trustees under the Will of Reese Carpenter, Deceased, Respondents
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1916-06-06
Citations: 218 N.Y. 705
Docket Number: 
Parties: William E. D. Stokes, Appellant, v. Orlando T. Carpenter et al., as Executors and Trustees under the Will of Reese Carpenter, Deceased, Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 218
Pages: 705–706

Head Matter:
William E. D. Stokes, Appellant, v. Orlando T. Carpenter et al., as Executors and Trustees under the Will of Reese Carpenter, Deceased, Respondents.
Stokes v. Carpenter, 172 App. Div. —, affirmed.
(Submitted May 22, 1916;
decided June 6, 1916.)
Appeal, by permission, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered January 14, 1916, which affirmed an order of Special Term denying a motion by plaintiff for judgment on the pleadings and sustaining a demurrer to the amended complaint, which shows that on or about the 13th day of September, 1909, the defendant Orlando T. Carpenter and Reese Carpenter entered into the following agreement with plaintiff:
“New York, Sept. 13, 1909.
“'In consideration of One Dollar ($1.00) of which this is a receipt and in view of past services, It is Agreed, for what you have done and for what you are about to do, in helping us and in giving your time and attention in the matters of Kensico and the surrounding country, we hereby agree that you shall have the option of purchasing one-half of our interests in the property adjoining Kensico at just what it costs with interest and taxes. ”
“CRT,ANDO T. CARPENTER.
“REESE CARPENTER.
“To W. E. D. Stokes,
“ Hotel Ansonia, New York City.”
The complaint described certain lands and alleged them to be the lands embraced in the agreement. The complaint further alleged a demand on defendants for a statement of the cost of the property, interest and taxes; the refusal of the defendants to furnish it; that plaintiff was willing to accept the option, but by reason of defendants’ refusal to furnish the statement, plaintiff’s inability to tender the amount, and the further fact that defendants have denied that plaintiff has any rights under this agreement and to be bound by it.
The following question was certified: “Is the complaint sufficient in law to establish a cause of action against the respondent Orlando T. Carpenter ?”
Mervyn Mackenzie for appellant.
James Dunne for respondents.

Opinion:
Order affirmed, with costs, and question certified answered in the negative; no opinion.
Concur: Willard Bartlett, Ch. J., Hiscock, Chase, Ouddeback, Hogan, Cardozo and Pound, JJ.