Bush v. Stevens

24 Wend. 256
New York Supreme Court·Decided July 15, 1840·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

By the Court,

Bronson, J.

I. Although this was a collateral undertaking, the seal imports a consideration, and none need be alleged in pleading. This question was fully considered at the last term.

II. The whole of the money mentioned in the condition of the bond was due at the time specified in the breach, and it is enough that the plaintiff has stated how much was due and in arrear, without specifying what portion of it was for principal and what for interest.

[257]*257III. The objection that there should have been a special request only applies to the first count. The covenant in that count is, that if [ *258 ] Peele does not pay the money according *to the condition of the bond, the defendants will pay it on request. The breach alleged is, that Peele did not pay, of which the ■ defendants had notice ; and that although often requested so to do, they have not paid. There should have been a special request.

Judgment for plaintiff on second, third and fourth counts, and for defendants on first count.

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

Bush v. Stevens, 24 Wend. 256 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1840).

24 Wend. 256 (Bush v. Stevens) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Northern Kansas Town Co. v. Oswald
18 Kan. 336 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1877)
Edelen v. Gough
5 Gill 103 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1847)
Lent v. Padelford
10 Mass. 230 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1813)