
    Mark M. Dittenfass, Appellant, v. David Horsley et al., Respondents, Impleaded with Others.
    
      Dittenfass v. Horsley, 177 App. Div. 143, affirmed.
    (Argued May 28, 1918;
    decided June 11, 1918.)
    Appeal from two orders of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered February 23, 1917, reversing two orders of Special Term denying motions for judgment on the pleadings and granting said motions. This action is brought to compel the specific performance of a contract, by the terms of which William Horsley agreed to sell to Lewis J. Selznick, 500 shares of the common and 500 ■ shares of the preferred - capital stock of the Universal Film Manufacturing Company. Plaintiff claimed the right to enforce the agreement by virtue of certain assignments. He alleged that Selznick duly assigned all his right, title and interest therein to one Burt, who duly assigned all his right, title and interest therein to plaintiff. The Appellate Division held: “ Not only is theré a failure to allege that the plaintiff assumed the-obligations of Selznick as between him, and his assignor, but the complaint contains no allegation with respect to any agreement between the plaintiff and William Horsley by which the former accepted or became bound to perform the obligations of Selznick, if any, under and by virtue of the agreement, and, therefore, Horsley could not have enforced the agreement against the plaintiff. It is now the well-settled law in this jurisdiction that a court of equity will not require specific performance of a unilateral contract against the party who has executed it at the instance of another party thereto who is not likewise obligated to perform.”
    
      Max D. Steuer and Henry Danziger for appellant.
    
      Samuel F. Moran and Henry 0. Oennert for respondents.
   Orders affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: His cock, Ch. J., Chase, Hogan, Pound, McLaughlin, Crane and Andrews, JJ.  