Hyperlawhypertext legal databasebeta Cortlandt v. de Graffenried 204 N.Y. 667

← Cases

Cortlandt v. de Graffenried

204 N.Y. 667 Court N.Y. Decision date 1912-02-27 English

Decision Majority · Concurring — Chase, J.

Contents
p. 667
Gertrude Van Cortlandt, Appellant, v. Raouel de Graffenried, Respondent.
(Argued February 13, 1912;
decided February 27, 1912.)

Headnote

Van Cortlandt v. de Graffenried, 147 App. Div. 835 , affirmed.
Appeal, by permission, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered December 29, 1911, which reversed an interlocutory judgment of Special Term overruling a demurrer to the complaint and sustained such demurrer in an action to compel a reconveyance of real property.
The following question was certified: “Does the second cause of action, contained in the amended complaint herein, set forth facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action ? ”
p. 668
Frederic R. Qoudert, Paul Fuller and Howard Thayer Kingsbury for appellant.
Thomas P. de Graffenried for respondent.

Order affirmed, with costs, and question certified • answered in the negative on opinion of Ingraham, P. J., below.

Concur: Cullen, Oh. J., Haight, Willard Bartlett and Hiscock, JJ. Concurs in result in memorandum: Chase, J., with whom Werner, J., concurs. Not voting: Vann, J.

(concurring). I concur because in my opinion the complaint shows that the conveyance by the plaintiff to the defendant of the undivided interest in the real property therein described was made in this state, and that it was voluntary and unconditional, and not because of or pursuant to the laws of the cantons of Switzerland or the republic of France. The defendant’s management, control and ownership of such interest in said real property arises from said voluntary conveyance and not from the marriage relation or the laws of said cantons or republic.

Cases cited