From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Muller v. Muller

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Dec 31, 1934
193 N.E. 642 (N.Y. 1934)

Opinion

Argued December 6, 1934

Decided December 31, 1934

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

John L. Class for plaintiff, appellant and respondent.

David S. Romanov, Edward Nyer, Jacob Nass and Edward T. Beldegreen for defendant, respondent and appellant.


In so far as the decree herein gives judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant in the sum of $2,118, which sum comprises the balance due to the plaintiff from the defendant, with interest thereon, up to and including the 5th day of February, 1934, and directs that the plaintiff have execution therefor, it is affirmed.

The decree, as modified by the Appellate Division, is further modified by striking out that provision which directs the defendant to pay to the plaintiff at the office of her attorney $200 per month, commencing on the 27th day of March, 1934. Specific performance is not the appropriate remedy for the collection of money. As these amounts come due, if they are not paid, the plaintiff has her action at law.

We need not at this time determine the duty of the plaintiff to support her son under the terms of the agreement as it is not now in issue.

The judgment should be modified in accordance with this opinion and, as so modified, affirmed, without costs.

POUND, Ch. J., CRANE, LEHMAN, O'BRIEN, HUBBS, CROUCH and LOUGHRAN, JJ., concur.

Judgment accordingly.


Summaries of

Muller v. Muller

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Dec 31, 1934
193 N.E. 642 (N.Y. 1934)
Case details for

Muller v. Muller

Case Details

Full title:ELIZABETH C. MULLER, Appellant and Respondent, v. EMIL A. MULLER…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Dec 31, 1934

Citations

193 N.E. 642 (N.Y. 1934)
193 N.E. 642

Citing Cases

T.F. Demilo Corp. v. E.K. Constr. Co., Inc.

Material issues of fact exist regarding the sureties' obligation to the plaintiff pursuant to the terms of…

Smith v. Smith

In this instance the contract calls for the payment of money and a court of equity can do no more than a…