
    Benjamin Weintraub, Respondent, v. Gustave E. Kruse, Appellant.
    
      Contract — specific performance —- real property — when contract to convey real property not void as lacking in mutuality or as too indefinite or ambiguous.
    
    
      Weintraub v. Kruse, 199 App. Div. 940, affirmed.
    (Submitted October 13, 1922;
    decided October 27, 1922.)
    Appeal, by permission, from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered December 16, 1921, unanimously affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term in an action to compel specific performance of an alleged contract for the sale of real estate which read as follows:
    
      “ New York, July 9, 1919.
    
      “ Received from Mr. B. Weintraub a check for Two Hundred ($200) Dollars as deposit on house 20 Jerome St., B’klyn., for amount of $11,600.00; first mortgage $5,500.00 and second mortgage $2,500.00, balance $3,600.00 in cash, second mortgage to be paid in instalment of $100.00 semi-annual with interest until paid.
    “ GUSTAVE E. KRUSE,
    “ BENJAMIN WEINTRAUB.”
    Defendant contended that the instrument lacked mutuality and was too indefinite and ambiguous to constitute a binding contract.
    
      Alexander Holtzoff and Paul Windels for appellant.
    
      Isaac Siegmeister for respondent.
   Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

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