Fuller v. Hubbard

6 Cow. 13
CourtNew York Supreme Court
DecidedAugust 15, 1826
StatusPublished
Cited by30 cases

This text of 6 Cow. 13 (Fuller v. Hubbard) 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
Fuller v. Hubbard, 6 Cow. 13 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1826).

Opinion

Curia, per

Woodworth, J.

The plaintiff was not entitled to recover under the general counts. The special contract is still subsisting; and the remedy of the plaintiff is on the contract. (Clark v. Smith, 14 John. 326.) That the plaintiff had no right to rescind, follows from the conclusion. (which we have come to on another point in the cause,) that the outstanding judgment admitted by the pleadings, was no obstacle in the way of performing the promise to convey according to its terms. The payments were made by the plaintiff upon the foot of the special contract. Every thing has gone on, for a series of years, upon the supposition that the agreement was valid and subsisting.

It is unnecessary to consider the question of damages ; as we think the action cannot be sustained on the contract, the purchaser not having put the vendor or his heirs in default.

in this case, it was necessary for the plaintiff to show, at least, that he had demanded a conveyance from the heirs of Smith, the intestate ; and that then, after waiting a reasonable time for making out and executing it, he had offered to receive it. The English law is peculiarly strict. By this, it seems, the vendee, who sues for a breach of the contract to convey, is required, not merely to shew payment of the purchase money ; he must also prove the preparation and tender of a conveyance ready for execution. Till this is done, the vendor is not put in default. In Baxter v. Lewis, (Forrest’s Exch Rep. 61-2,) on a bill filed by the vendor of land against the purchaser, for a specific performance, the defendant was decreed to pay the purchase money. He neglected to do so, and was attached. A motion being made to set aside [18]*18the attachment, on the ground that, as the vendor had not prepare(j arid tendered a conveyance, the defendant was not bound to pay ; and the attachment was, therefore, premature; Pemberton, for the plaintiff, said, “ It is the duty of the purchaser to make and tender a conveyance. The vendor is never called upon to do so.” The court denied the motion, thinking it was incumbent on the defendant, “ to prepare and tender the conveyance, and pay the purchase money.” In Knight v. Crockford, (1 Esp. N. P. Rep. 190,) on an objection by Adair, sergeant, that the plaintiff, a purchaser, could not recover on the contract in question, (which consisted of a promise by the plaintiff to pay for, and of the defendant to convey real estate,) because he had not shewn the preparation and tender of a conveyance to the defendant; Eyre, C. J. did not question that the objection was according to the general rule ; but distinguished the case, saying the defendant had incapacitated himself to convey by selling to another, which rendered a strict performance on the part of the plaintiff unnecessary.

Mr. Sugden declares the rule of Baxter v. Lewis to be the settled rule of the profession in England; and notwithstanding some dicta which he mentions to the contrary, he still infers that the purchaser, and not the vendor, ought to prepare and tender the conveyance. (Sugd. L. V. 181-2, Am. ed. 1820.) Sugden agrees that the contrary was the general rule when the simplicity of the common law reigned, and possession was the best evidence of title ; but upon the modifications of estates, unknown to the common law, which resulted in the difficulties surrounding modern titles, the more convenient rule which he mentions had growii up among the conveyancers,

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

Related

Hall, Sheryl L. v. Clinton, Hillary R.
285 F.3d 74 (D.C. Circuit, 2002)
Multi-Channel Tv Cable Company, D/B/A Adelphia Cable Communications v. Charlottesville Quality Cable Corporation, a Virginia Corporation Charlottesville Quality Cable Operating Company, a Virginia Corporation Management Services Corporation of Charlottesville, a Virginia Corporation Madison Limited Partnership, a Virginia Limited Partnership Cabell Limited Partnership, a Virginia Limited Partnership Brandon Limited Partnership, a Virginia Limited Partnership Four Seasons Apartments Limited Partnership, a Virginia Limited Partnership Sherwood Manor Limited Partnership, a Virginia Limited Partnership George B. McCallum Iii, Trustee of Oxford Hill Land Trust David W. Kudravetz, Trustee of Oxford Hill Land Trust L-R Investments, a Virginia Limited Partnership, Multi-Channel Tv Cable Company, D/B/A Adelphia Cable Communications v. Charlottesville Quality Cable Corporation, a Virginia Corporation Charlottesville Quality Cable Operating Company, a Virginia Corporation Management Services Corporation of Charlottesville, a Virginia Corporation Madison Limited Partnership, a Virginia Limited Partnership Cabell Limited Partnership, a Virginia Limited Partnership Brandon Limited Partnership, a Virginia Limited Partnership Four Seasons Apartments Limited Partnership, a Virginia Limited Partnership Sherwood Manor Limited Partnership, a Virginia Limited Partnership George B. McCallum Iii, Trustee of Oxford Hill Land Trust David W. Kudravetz, Trustee of Oxford Hill Land Trust L-R Investments, a Virginia Limited Partnership
65 F.3d 1113 (Fourth Circuit, 1995)
United States v. Jenks
22 F.3d 1513 (Tenth Circuit, 1994)
Dixon v. International Harvester Company
754 F.2d 573 (Fifth Circuit, 1985)
Deibel v. Kinnear
17 Ohio Law. Abs. 684 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1934)
Northrup v. Mead
121 A.D. 385 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1907)
Raudabaugh v. Hart
61 Ohio St. (N.S.) 73 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1899)
Ritchie v. Bennett
35 A.D. 68 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1898)
Ziehen v. . Smith
42 N.E. 1080 (New York Court of Appeals, 1896)
Ziehen v. Smith
24 N.Y.S. 922 (New York County Courts, 1893)
Dowdney v. McCullom
14 N.Y. 367 (New York Court of Appeals, 1874)
Field v. Martin
49 Ga. 268 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1873)
Bruce v. . Tilson
25 N.Y. 194 (New York Court of Appeals, 1862)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
6 Cow. 13, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fuller-v-hubbard-nysupct-1826.