Case Name: Frederick Crane, Respondent, v. Chase Andrews and Others, Defendants, Impleaded with Harold G. Villard and Hudson Iron Company, Appellants
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1909-06-04
Citations: 133 A.D. 349
Docket Number: 
Parties: Frederick Crane, Respondent, v. Chase Andrews and Others, Defendants, Impleaded with Harold G. Villard and Hudson Iron Company, Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 133
Pages: 349–352

Head Matter:
Frederick Crane, Respondent, v. Chase Andrews and Others, Defendants, Impleaded with Harold G. Villard and Hudson Iron Company, Appellants.
Second Department,
June 4, 1909.
Contract—sale of land— acceptance of part performance.
Where the main purpose of a contract between the plaintiff and the defendant A., in pursuance of which plaintiff was to assign certain options to be received by him on three tracts of ore land to a specified trustee, was to rehabilitate a mining company and to make an indebtedness due plaintiff for money he had advanced to the company a lien on whatever, land it might •acquire from the trustee on reorganization, and it appears that although only two tracts were conveyed by the plaintiff this was acquiesced in by all interested in the company, which could scarcely pay for the land conveyed, a finding by the trial judge that the defendants accepted such performance as full performance of the contract is sustained by the evidence.
Burr and Jenks, JJ., dissented, with opinion.
Appeal by the defendants, Harold Gf. Villard. and another, from ¡a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the'plaintiff, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Orange on the 23d day ■of September, 1908, upon the decision of the court rendered after .a trial at the Dutchess County Special Term.
William M. Wherry, Jr. [John A. Laing with him on the brief], for the appellants.
Graham Witschief [ William Douglas Moore with him on the brief], for the 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 ob ject 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 witli 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.
Hibschbero, P. J., and Woodward, J., concurredBurr, J., read for reversal, with whom Jenks, J., concurred.