¶1We are entirely satisfied with the Report of the Referee in this ease, and with the reasons that he has so folly and ably given in support of his decision. We observe, in addition, that, so far from there being any incompatibility between a power to sell and a power to divide, the exercise of the former may, frequently, be necessary to that of the latter, that is; a sale of portions of the estate may be necessary to enable the trustees of the power to make a just and equal division of the whole, and hence, when a power to sell is not expressly given, its existence, as incidental to that of a division, may reasonably be implied.
1 Bosw. 214
Conover v. Hoffman
The Superior Court of New York City
Decided May 16, 1857
The Superior Court of New York City · decided 1857-05-16
This action was brought to compel the specific execution of a contract relative to the purchase and conveyance of real estate. The contract is set forth in the complaint, and admitted in the answer, and the defendant, as purchaser, refused to perform it, on the ground that a good title could not be given by the plaintiffs. The cause was referred to Murray Hoffman, Jun., to take the testimony and report the same, with his opinion thereon.
Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently January 1890
3 state decisions
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1857-05-16
View the full empirical analysis of this case →