Crawford v. Morrell

New York Supreme Court

Crawford v. Morrell

8 Johns. 253

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedAugust 15, 1811

StatusPublished

Cited by28 cases

This text of 8 Johns. 253 (Crawford v. Morrell) 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

Crawford v. Morrell, 8 Johns. 253 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1811).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam-

The 3d and 4th objections taken to the? legality of the recovery below, are equally well founded. The contract proved, varied from the contract laid, inasmuch as the contract proved was, that the testator was to' pay for all the land included in the road, and the contract as laid was, that he was to pay for one half. This variance was material and fatal. A contract must be proved as laid, and the plaintiff cannot give in evidence an entire contract, relating to two subjects, when he declares for one. (1 Ld. Raym. 735. 1 Term Rep. 240. 1 East, 1. 1 Campb. N. P. 361.) The contract as proved was, that the testator was to pay, not only for the land included in the road, but for other lands in possession of the testator, and claimed by Morrell. This was1 part of the same contract, and this last part was void by the statute of frauds ; and if part of one entire contract be illegal and void, the whole is void. (Crater v. Beckett, Term Rep. 201.) The judgment below must be reversed.

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

Per Curiam-

The 3d and 4th objections taken to the? legality of the recovery below, are equally well founded. The contract proved, varied from the contract laid, inasmuch as the contract proved was, that the testator was to' pay for all the land included in the road, and the contract as laid was, that he was to pay for one half. This variance was material and fatal. A contract must be proved as laid, and the plaintiff cannot give in evidence an entire contract, relating to two subjects, when he declares for one. (1 Ld. Raym. 735. 1 Term Rep. 240. 1 East, 1. 1 Campb. N. P. 361.) The contract as proved was, that the testator was to pay, not only for the land included in the road, but for other lands in possession of the testator, and claimed by Morrell. This was1 part of the same contract, and this last part was void by the statute of frauds ; and if part of one entire contract be illegal and void, the whole is void. (Crater v. Beckett, Term Rep. 201.) The judgment below must be reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 Johns. 253, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crawford-v-morrell-nysupct-1811.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack