Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

7 Barb. 386

Ackert v. Pultz

New York Supreme Court

Decided November 5, 1849

New York Supreme Court · decided 1849-11-05

Ejectment, tried at the Dutchess circuit in February, 1849, before Barculo, J. On the trial it was admitted by and between the counsel for the respective parties, that Daniel Pultz died intestate, in the year 1798, leaving a widow and eight children him surviving ; that he was the owner and in the occupation of the whole of the premises described in the declaration, at the time of his death ; that his widow and children continued to own and occupy the premises until 1819;…

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently December 1860

1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1849-11-05

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

By the Court, Barculo. J.

¶1The husband and wife (now plaintiff) executed a deed, and deposited it as an escrow, to be delivered on the execution of a certain bond and mortgage, the husband subsequently requested the holder of the deed to deliver it; waiving the performance of the condition, the execution of the mortgage. The judge at the circuit, charged the jury, that the consent of the husband to the delivery of the deed, would bind the wife, and that if they found that he had waived the performance of the condition, and requested, and consented to, the delivery, it passed the title, and she could not recover. The jury found for the defendant.

¶2I think the charge was right. The only mode by which the plaintiff could convey was the statutory mode, by signing and acknowledging in a particular form. She having done this, had no power to make an agreement as to the escrow. That was the act of the husband. He had a right to waive it; and having done so, her right is gone. The motion for a new trial must be denied.

/7/barb/386 · .json · Public domain