Ferris v. . Spooner, Etc.

New York Court of Appeals

Ferris v. . Spooner, Etc.

5 N.E. 773, 102 N.Y. 10, 57 Sickels 10, 1886 N.Y. LEXIS 793

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 23, 1886

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 5 N.E. 773 (Ferris v. . Spooner, Etc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ferris v. . Spooner, Etc., 5 N.E. 773, 102 N.Y. 10, 57 Sickels 10, 1886 N.Y. LEXIS 793 (N.Y. 1886).

Pincite

Opinion

Danforth, J.

The appeal to this court is by Spooner as assignee. In substance he contends that the action is premature—that he might within the ninety days limitation go on with the contract, and at any rate that the plaintiff could not have payment or foreclosure until it expired. - But the plaintiff’s agreement to advance money and his promise to delay foreclosure were both dependent upon the undertaking of Coggeshall to erect the houses; when,- therefore, he repudiated the further performance of the contract, the plaintiff was discharged from all obligation to do either and set at liberty to enforce ■ his securities for the money already advanced. (Hochster v. De La Tour, 2 E. & B. 678.) A previous demand of payment was not essential to a cause of action. (Gillett v. Balcolm, 6 Barb. 370.) The appellant’s position is no better than that of his assignor, and the other points made by him seem to us unimportant.

We think the judgment was right and should be affirmed.

All concur.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Danforth, J.

The appeal to this court is by Spooner as assignee. In substance he contends that the action is premature—that he might within the ninety days limitation go on with the contract, and at any rate that the plaintiff could not have payment or foreclosure until it expired. - But the plaintiff’s agreement to advance money and his promise to delay foreclosure were both dependent upon the undertaking of Coggeshall to erect the houses; when,- therefore, he repudiated the further performance of the contract, the plaintiff was discharged from all obligation to do either and set at liberty to enforce ■ his securities for the money already advanced. (Hochster v. De La Tour, 2 E. & B. 678.) A previous demand of payment was not essential to a cause of action. (Gillett v. Balcolm, 6 Barb. 370.) The appellant’s position is no better than that of his assignor, and the other points made by him seem to us unimportant.

We think the judgment was right and should be affirmed.

All concur.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 N.E. 773, 102 N.Y. 10, 57 Sickels 10, 1886 N.Y. LEXIS 793, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ferris-v-spooner-etc-ny-1886.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack