Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

173 N.Y. 332

Parker v. . Beer

New York Court of Appeals

Decided January 27, 1903

New York Court of Appeals · decided 1903-01-27

Supreme Court in the second' judicial department, entered January 20, 1902, in favor of defendants upon the submission of a controversy under section 12Y9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This was a submission to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, in the second judicial department, of a controversy between the parties to an agreement, for the sale by the plaintiff and for the purchase by the defendants of real estate.

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently March 1945

3 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1903-01-27

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Gray, J.

¶1 I think the determination by the Appellate Division was correct. The power of sale given by this will cannot be regarded as an express direction to sell the testator’s real property for the payment of his debts and, therefore, it not being imperative, its exercise could not be compelled by a creditor. Section 2759 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that a decree directing the disposition of real property can be made, only, where “ the property directed to be disposed of was not effectually devised expressly charged with *335 the payment of debts, or funeral expenses, and is not subject to a valid power of sale for the payment thereof.” The statute is explicit. There is no mention by the testator of his debts. . With a will as bare as is this one, a purpose to charge the payment of debts upon the real estate would have to rest on implication and inference. This is not what the statute intended and we think it a safer rule, in the interest of creditors, as, also, for greater certainty of title, to hold that the statutory requirements, if not literally followed, must be met by clear testamentary expressions, in order to deprive creditors of their statutory right to a judicial sale.

¶2 For these reasons, the judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

¶3 Parker, Ch. J., Bartlett, Haight, Martin, Vann and Werner, JJ., concur.

¶4 Judgment affirmed.

/173/ny/332 · .json · Public domain