Case Name: CRANE v. ANDREWS et al.
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1909-06-04
Citations: 117 N.Y.S. 97
Docket Number: 
Parties: CRANE v. ANDREWS et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 117
Pages: 97–99

Head Matter:
CRANE v. ANDREWS et al.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.
June 4, 1909.)
Appeal from Special Term, Orange County.
Action by Frederick Crane against Chase Andrews, Harold G. Villard, and the Hudson Iron Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and the two last-named defendants appeal.
Affirmed.
Argued before HIRSCHBERG, P. J., and WOODWARD, GAYNOR, JENKS, and BURR, JJ.
Wm. M. Wherry, Jr. (John A. Laing, on the brief), for appellants.
Graham Witschief (Wm. Douglas Moore, on the brief), for respondent.

Opinion:
GAYNOR, J.
I do not see any reason for reversing this judgment. Two tracts were conveyed and accepted. There were no funds to buy the other, and no demand for it. This is not like a contract to sell three pieces of land. The main object was to rehabilitate and. establish a company, and get it in operation and on a working basis. They could do it with the three tracts or mines, or only with one or two, and they all acquiesced in two. It is so found on ample evidence. There was an indebtedness to the plaintiff of the $94,000" and the main object was to make that a lien on the land of the company, whatever it should get and go to work on.
Concededly one of the tracts was not acquired by the company, but it was rehabilitated on the basis of two, and could scarcely pay for those. The point is, Was the finding of the trial judge to that effect without sufficient evidence? It is scarcely questioned.
The judgment should be affirmed.
HIRSCHBERG, P. J., and WOODWARD, J., concur.