Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Edwin E. Stancliff et al., Respondents, v. Elmore P. Ross, President, etc., Appellant, 1874 — 57 N.Y. 643 · caselaw · US
Contracts · MBE-tested
Edwin E. Stancliff et al., Respondents, v. Elmore P. Ross, President, etc., Appellant
57 N.Y. 643·New York Commission of Appeals·1874·NY
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
Edwin E. Stancliff et al., Respondents, v. Elmore P. Ross, President, etc., Appellant.
(Argued October 2, 1873;
decided January term, 1874.)
This was an action against defendant, as president of the Merchants’ Union Express Company, for the specific performance of a contract to take a lease of certain premises belonging to plaintiffs.
Defendant’s company, by authorized agents, entered into a verbal agreement with plaintiffs, that on condition they would make certain repairs, and take up leases under which tenants were occupying a portion of the premises, the company would take a lease for five years of the whole premises. The plaintiffs went on and made the repairs and bought out the tenants in possession, so that the premises were ready for occupancy by defendant’s company at the time fixed. Duplicate leases were prepared, and, after negotiations as to certain alterations, the company declined to take the lease. After the commencement of this action, but before the trial, defendant’s company discontinued business and became consolidated with the American Merchants’ Union, and its property was in the hands of a receiver. The referee found that the officers of the company had no power to specifically perform; and he held that specific performance could not be awarded, but allowed plaintiffs damages. Held, that assuming that a specific performance would have been proper had the company been in a condition to perform, it was not a case where damages could be awarded in lieu thereof.
Amasa J. Parker for the appellant.
J. E. Dewey for the respondents.
[MAJORITY — Reynolds, C.,]
Reynolds, C.,
reads for reversal.
All concur; Gbay 0., not sitting.
Judgment reversed.