McBratney v. Heydecker

New York Court of Common Pleas

McBratney v. Heydecker

28 N.Y.S. 730, 8 Misc. 309, 59 N.Y. St. Rep. 281

DecidedMay 17, 1894

StatusPublished

This text of 28 N.Y.S. 730 (McBratney v. Heydecker) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Common Pleas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

McBratney v. Heydecker, 28 N.Y.S. 730, 8 Misc. 309, 59 N.Y. St. Rep. 281 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1894).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This action was brought for a breach of contract. The evidence seems to be uncontradicted that the contract to pay the sum of $30 was made directly between the plaintiff and the son •of the lessee, who was also her agent. He had a right to make a personal contract of the nature under consideration, and would be bound by its terms, if it was performed. There may be some question as to whether or not, at- one time, the respondent intended to fulfill; but the fact appears without contradiction that he did thereafter, and within the time limited by the contract, fulfill all its terms. Hence, there could be no rescission of it, as argued by the appellant; and he became entitled to the money which was promised by appellant; and therefore the judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

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

PER CURIAM.

This action was brought for a breach of contract. The evidence seems to be uncontradicted that the contract to pay the sum of $30 was made directly between the plaintiff and the son •of the lessee, who was also her agent. He had a right to make a personal contract of the nature under consideration, and would be bound by its terms, if it was performed. There may be some question as to whether or not, at- one time, the respondent intended to fulfill; but the fact appears without contradiction that he did thereafter, and within the time limited by the contract, fulfill all its terms. Hence, there could be no rescission of it, as argued by the appellant; and he became entitled to the money which was promised by appellant; and therefore the judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

28 N.Y.S. 730, 8 Misc. 309, 59 N.Y. St. Rep. 281, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcbratney-v-heydecker-nyctcompl-1894.