MITCHILL V. LATH
160 N.E. 646 (NY 1928)
NATURE OF THE CASE: Lath (D), sellers, appealed a decision requiring them to specifically perform under an oral agreement asserting that the parole evidence struck such accessions.
FACTS: Mitchill (P), wanted to buy property from Lath (D). Across the road, on property belonging to another, D had an icehouse, which they might remove. P found the icehouse objectionable and wanted it removed. D had made an oral agreement with P that D would remove the icehouse on the adjoining property. Relying on this promise, P bought the property. The written contract was completely integrated. P moved onto the property and got her deed and spent considerable sums improving the property for a summer residence. D refused to remove the icehouse that next spring as promised. P sued to compel removal under specific performance. Judgment was entered for P. The appellate court affirmed. D appealed.
ISSUE:
RULE OF LAW:
HOLDING AND
DECISION:
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Get
free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online
for 2-3 days and free samples
of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
