Burnet v. Bisco

New York Supreme Court

Burnet v. Bisco

4 Johns. 235

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedMay 15, 1809

StatusPublished

Cited by20 cases

This text of 4 Johns. 235 (Burnet v. Bisco) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Burnet v. Bisco, 4 Johns. 235 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1809).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

A defect in substance in this declaration is, that there is no consideration stated. The defendant agreed to give the refusal of the farm to the plaintiff; but he did not agree to take it, and there was no promise on his part as a consideration for the promise of the defendant, nor any money paid or other valuable consideration given. The agreement was a mere nudum pactum. A consideration is as necessary to an agreement reduced to writing, as if it remained in parol. (1 Sound. 211. note 2.) There must he judgment for the defendant.

Judgment for the defendant?

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

A defect in substance in this declaration is, that there is no consideration stated. The defendant agreed to give the refusal of the farm to the plaintiff; but he did not agree to take it, and there was no promise on his part as a consideration for the promise of the defendant, nor any money paid or other valuable consideration given. The agreement was a mere nudum pactum. A consideration is as necessary to an agreement reduced to writing, as if it remained in parol. (1 Sound. 211. note 2.) There must he judgment for the defendant.

Judgment for the defendant?

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

4 Johns. 235, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burnet-v-bisco-nysupct-1809.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack