Gay v. Alter

Supreme Court

Gay v. Alter

102 U.S. 79, 26 L. Ed. 48, 12 Otto 79, 1880 U.S. LEXIS 2000

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedMarch 29, 1880

Docket1025

StatusPublished

Cited by14 cases

This text of 102 U.S. 79 (Gay v. Alter) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Gay v. Alter, 102 U.S. 79, 26 L. Ed. 48, 12 Otto 79, 1880 U.S. LEXIS 2000 (1880).

Pincite

Opinion

lyr-R.. Justice Bradley,

after stating the. case, delivered the opinion of the court.

It is contended by the appellant that the contract whereby Ames agreed to sell his judgment' for $8,000, was a synallagmatic contract, which he had a right to rescind if the agreement of the other -party as to the payment of the purchase-money was .not performed. This is undoubtedly the'law ,of Louisiana ; but that law also requires that, if a party to a contract wisnes to rescind it for such a cause, he must return to •the other party what he has received, so as to put him' in the same situation- he was in before. In the present-case,it. is not to be supposed that it was Ames’s duty to return the $3,000 which ha. received, because it was really received from Aymar, the debtor. But he was at least bound- to credit that amount^on the judgment, which would have-been a substantial iVffj.irn ; and in that case he would have a right to -maintain his judgment for,the whole balance, and Gay, his vendee, would have had the same right. But he did not do this: nor has Gay done it; but, On the contrary, -the latter has endeavored to pollect'the whole judgment without any deduction whatever. This, conduct is' totally inconsistent with the position taken! It shows, not a rescission of the contract, and a return or credit of the amount paid thereon, but a determination to regard the transaction as altogether void and the whole judgment still due.

We think that this position cannot be maintained-

Decree affirmed.

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

lyr-R.. Justice Bradley,

after stating the. case, delivered the opinion of the court.

It is contended by the appellant that the contract whereby Ames agreed to sell his judgment' for $8,000, was a synallagmatic contract, which he had a right to rescind if the agreement of the other -party as to the payment of the purchase-money was .not performed. This is undoubtedly the'law ,of Louisiana ; but that law also requires that, if a party to a contract wisnes to rescind it for such a cause, he must return to •the other party what he has received, so as to put him' in the same situation- he was in before. In the present-case,it. is not to be supposed that it was Ames’s duty to return the $3,000 which ha. received, because it was really received from Aymar, the debtor. But he was at least bound- to credit that amount^on the judgment, which would have-been a substantial iVffj.irn ; and in that case he would have a right to -maintain his judgment for,the whole balance, and Gay, his vendee, would have had the same right. But he did not do this: nor has Gay done it; but, On the contrary, -the latter has endeavored to pollect'the whole judgment without any deduction whatever. This, conduct is' totally inconsistent with the position taken! It shows, not a rescission of the contract, and a return or credit of the amount paid thereon, but a determination to regard the transaction as altogether void and the whole judgment still due.

We think that this position cannot be maintained-

Decree affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

102 U.S. 79, 26 L. Ed. 48, 12 Otto 79, 1880 U.S. LEXIS 2000, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gay-v-alter-scotus-1880.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack