
    Mildred Sibel, Respondent, v. Andrew Sibel, Appellant, Impleaded with Others.
    
      Sibel v. Sibel, 163 App. Div. 927, affirmed.
    (Argued January 25, 1918;
    decided February 12, 1918.)
    Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the third judicial department, entered May 7, 1914, unanimously affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a decision of the court at a Trial Term in an action to compel the specific performance of an oral contract alleged to have been entered into, between William Sibel, now deceased, and his father, the appellant, Andrew Sibel, whereby the said Andrew Sibel agreed with the said William that if the latter would erect upon a farm owned by the said Andrew Sibel a certain barn and other outbuildings, he, the said Andrew Sibel, would, on the completion of said buildings, deed the farm to the said William Sibel. The amended answer of the appellant, the alleged donor, denied the making of the contract of gift, and as a separate defense averred that the alleged contract of gift was void under the Statute of Frauds. At the close of the trial the court submitted the following question to the jury: “ Did Andrew Sibel, Sr., make an agreement on August 9th, 1908, at the Allen farm with his son William, in substance as follows: If William would rebuild with his own money the buildings which had been burned he (Andrew Sibel, Sr.) would execute to him (William) a deed of the Allen farm, when said buildings had been constructed.” The jury having answered this question in the affirmative, the court adopted the finding of the jury and rendered judgment for the specific performance of the contract.
    
      William Dewey Loucks for appellant.
    
      William E. Woollard and Michael D. Reilly for respondent.
   Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Hiscock, Ch. J., Chase, Hogan, Cardozo, Pound, McLaughlin and Andrews, JJ.  