Gardner v. Gardner

10 Johns. 47
New York Supreme Court·Decided January 15, 1813·Published·Cited by 10 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The plea of non est factum only put the deed' in issue, and it was not requisite for the plaintiffs to prove their averments. The authorities cited (Tidd and Peake) establish this rule. The covenant declared on and produced, was to the plaintiffs and not to the widow. The term widow is Used in it only td designate the obligation, of which they were to pay their proportion. The covenant was a counterpart tq one made by the plaintiffs in favour of the defendants, and was to meet the proposition [49] contained in the plaintiffs' covenant. Both covenants were mu. tual between the heirs. The nonsuit must be set aside, and a new trial awarded, 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

Gardner v. Gardner, 10 Johns. 47 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1813).

10 Johns. 47 (Gardner v. Gardner) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Leman v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.
137 Ill. App. 258 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1907)
Smith v. Lozano
1 Ill. App. 171 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1878)
Fairchild v. Lynch
10 Jones & S. 265 (The Superior Court of New York City, 1877)
People v. White
55 Barb. 606 (New York Supreme Court, 1864)
Northy v. Northy
45 N.H. 141 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1863)
Utter v. Vance
7 Blackf. 514 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1845)
Dale v. Roosevelt
9 Cow. 307 (Court for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors, 1827)
Thomas v. Woods
4 Cow. 173 (New York Supreme Court, 1825)
Courcier v. Graham
1 Ohio 330 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1824)
How v. How
1 N.H. 49 (Superior Court of New Hampshire, 1817)