M'Auley v. Billenger

20 Johns. 89
CourtNew York Supreme Court
DecidedMay 15, 1822
StatusPublished
Cited by16 cases

This text of 20 Johns. 89 (M'Auley v. Billenger) 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
M'Auley v. Billenger, 20 Johns. 89 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1822).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff in error voluntarily entered

into a contract, by which he engagep to pay to the defendants in error, twenty-five dollars, for the purpose, and in the [90]*90manner specified in the instrument to which he subscribed his name. The consideration for his promise was the repairing of tiie church. By signing the subscription, he sanctioned the acts of the meeting in resolving to make the repairs, and in the appointment of the committee for that purpose; and he, moreover, recognised the authority of the committee to receive the subscription money, and to contract "for the repairs. The only question, then, is, whether the condition, on which the sum subscribed was to be paid, has been fulfilled on the part of the defendants.in error. They contracted for the repairs, at a specified sum; and the person with whom they contracted, covenanted, on his part, to receive the balance of that sum, over and above the" amount subscribed, in the proceeds of the sale of pews, which he was authorized to make. The payment of the whole sum was provided, and could be raised, according to the meaning of the condition of the instrument subscribed, without having recourse to the defendants in error. The terms of subscription were, therefore, complied with; and the defendant below was liable to pay the instalment for which judgment was rendered against him in the Court below.

.Judgment affirmed.

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

Related

Hull v. Pearson
38 A.D. 588 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1899)
Central Presbyterian Church v. Thompson
8 A.D. 565 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1896)
Philomath College v. Hartless
6 Or. 158 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1876)
Higert v. Trustees of Indiana Asbury University
53 Ind. 326 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1876)
State v. Johnson
52 Ind. 197 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1875)
Capelle v. Trinity M. E. Church
5 F. Cas. 38 (D. Delaware, 1875)
Christian Coll. v. Hendley
49 Cal. 347 (California Supreme Court, 1874)
Lathrop v. Knapp
27 Wis. 214 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1870)
Van Rensselaer v. Aikin
44 Barb. 547 (New York Supreme Court, 1865)
Wayne & Ontario Collegiate Institute v. Smith
36 Barb. 576 (New York Supreme Court, 1861)
Gittings v. Mayhew
6 Md. 113 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1854)
Wilson v. Baptist Education Society
10 Barb. 308 (New York Supreme Court, 1851)
Barnes v. Perine
9 Barb. 202 (New York Supreme Court, 1850)
Thompson v. Page
42 Mass. 565 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1840)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
20 Johns. 89, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mauley-v-billenger-nysupct-1822.