Jackson ex dem. Green v. Clark

3 Johns. 424
New York Supreme Court·Decided August 15, 1808·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Thompson, J.

I had no doubt, at the trial, that the paper produced by the plaintiff, was a mere memorandum [425] of a conveyance, and should have Ordered a nonsuit, had not the plaintiff’s counsel urged that the cause might go to the jury, and the question be reserved, as to the operation of the writing given in evidence.

Per Curiam.

This is a mere agreement, that Green, on paying 14 shillings per acre, with interest,’ from the 1st fuly, 1792, should have a conveyance of the land. It is not a conveyance ; nor a lease-. No consideration is expressed, or paid; no rent reserved, nor are there any words importing a lease. It is a memorandum of an ex-ecutory agreement to sell the land, and nothing more» There must be, according to the case, a judgment of non-suit.

Judgment of nonsuit,

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

Jackson ex dem. Green v. Clark, 3 Johns. 424 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1808).

3 Johns. 424 (Jackson ex dem. Green v. Clark) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Boston, Concord & Montreal Railroad v. Boston & Lowell Railroad
23 A. 529 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1888)
Stribling v. Hart
20 Fla. 235 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1883)
Lyford v. Putnam
35 N.H. 563 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1857)
Nevett v. Berry
18 F. Cas. 27 (District of Columbia, 1837)