
    Frederick W. Hottenroth, Appellant, v. William Hastorf, Respondent.
    
      Beal property — contract — action to compel specific performance of alleged contract to convey real property — Statute of Frauds.
    
    
      Hottenroth v. Hastorf, 191 Ápp. Div. 897, affirmed.
    (Submitted January 25, 1922;
    decided February 28, 1922.)
    Appeal from a judgment, entered May .4, 1920, upon an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, reversing a judgment in favor, of plaintiff entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term and directing a dismissal of the complaint. The action was to compel specific performance of. an alleged contract to convey real property. The - Appellate Division found as a fact that neither the defendant, nor any person by him lawfully authorized, made or signed a contract in writing, or some note or memorandum thereof expressing the consideration for the sale of . the premises in. suit and directed a dismissal of the complaint.
    
      Frederick W. Hottenroth and Arthur D. Lyons for appellant.
    
      William F. Bleakley for respondent.
   Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur:- His cock, Ch. J., Hogan, Cardoz'o, Pound, McLaughlin, Crane and Andrews, JJ.  