| N.Y. App. Div. | Nov 15, 1914
Present — Ingraham, P. J., Laughlin, Scott, Dowling and Hotchkiss, JJ.; Ingraham, P. J., dissented on the ground that the contract sued on was not in writing and was void under the Statute of Frauds.
See Pers. Prop. Law (Gen. Laws, chap. 47; Laws of 1897, chap. 417), § 31, subd. 6; Id. (Consol. Laws, chap. 41; Laws of 1909, chap. 45), § 31, subd. 6; Id. §§ 85. 157, added by Laws of 1911, chap. 571.— [Rep.