Cuyler v. Cuyler

2 Johns. 186
CourtNew York Supreme Court
DecidedFebruary 15, 1807
StatusPublished
Cited by15 cases

This text of 2 Johns. 186 (Cuyler v. Cuyler) 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
Cuyler v. Cuyler, 2 Johns. 186 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1807).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The bond executed by the plaintiff and John C. Cuyler to the defendant, is equivalent to a perpetual covenant, not to sue the defendant upon any de.-J 1 mand then existing. Such a covenant amounts to an .absolute release. This construction has been adopted [187]*187by courts, to avoid circuity of action. For if in such case the party should sue, contrary to his covenant, the other party would recover precisely the same damages which he sustained by the other suing. (Cro. Eliz. 352. Shower, 43. 5 Bac. Ab. 683.) The plaintiff prosecutes upon the note itself, given by the defendant to him, which bears date nine months before the bond set up as a release. We, therefore, cannot take into consideration the circumstances, that the note was given for a debt due from the defendant to Smith, for which the plaintiff became surety, and was obliged afterwards, and after the date of the bond, to pay to Smith. Had the suit been for money thus paid as surety, the cause of action would have arisen subsequent to the date of the bond, and would not have been affected by it. The bond being given by the plaintiff, and another, will not prevent its application to the present action. They covenant not to sue either as partners or separately. The verdict must, therefore, be set aside, with costs to abide the event of the suit.

New trial granted.

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

Related

Costigan v. Pennsylvania Railroad
23 A. 810 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1892)
Case Wagon Co. v. Wolfenden
23 N.W. 485 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1885)
Benedict v. Rea
42 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 34 (New York Supreme Court, 1885)
Lipman v. Lowitz
78 Ill. 252 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1875)
Snow v. Fletcher
43 N.H. 642 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1862)
Mickles v. . Townsend
18 N.Y. 575 (New York Court of Appeals, 1859)
Guynemer v. Lopez
45 S.C.L. 199 (Court of Appeals of South Carolina, 1858)
Administrators of Perrin v. Protection Insurance
11 Ohio St. 147 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1842)
Pierce v. Parker
45 Mass. 80 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1842)
McNeal's Administrator v. Blackburn
37 Ky. 170 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1838)
Olcott v. G. Banfill & E. Carlton
7 N.H. 469 (Superior Court of New Hampshire, 1835)
Robinson v. Leavitt
7 N.H. 73 (Superior Court of New Hampshire, 1834)
Parker v. Holmes
4 N.H. 97 (Superior Court of New Hampshire, 1827)
Clark v. Bush
3 Cow. 151 (New York Supreme Court, 1824)
Hoffman v. Brown
6 N.J.L. 523 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1798)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2 Johns. 186, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cuyler-v-cuyler-nysupct-1807.