General

Rose M. Palmer and Lillian Palmer, Appellants, v. Rotary Realty Company and Others, Respondents

178 A.D. 907·New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division·1917·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

Rose M. Palmer and Lillian Palmer, Appellants, v. Rotary Realty Company and Others, Respondents. [MAJORITY] This demurrer to the amended complaint was well taken. An alleged promise to hold land and then to reeonvey on request, resting wholly in parol, is within the Statute of Frauds. (Real Prop. Law, § 242; 20 Cye. 233 (e).) Even if in writing, such a promise to reconvey would not be specifically enforced for the reason that it was unilateral, as plaintiffs do not show that they agreed to take back the property. (Levin v. Dietz, 194 N. Y. 376; Riker v. Comfort, 140 App. Div. 117.) These appellants cannot avail themselves of the alleged usury in giving a mortgage before they acquired the property. The order is, therefore, affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Jenks, P. J., Stapleton, Mills, Putnam and Blackmar, JJ., concurred. See Consol. Laws, chap. 50 (Laws of T909, chap. 52), § 242.— [Rep.