M'Nitt v. Clark

7 Johns. 465
CourtNew York Supreme Court
DecidedFebruary 15, 1811
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 7 Johns. 465 (M'Nitt v. Clark) 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'Nitt v. Clark, 7 Johns. 465 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1811).

Opinion

Per Curiam,

The defendant showed nothing in his defence, and he is, therefore, to be considered as having failed in every part of the condition of the bond, and to have performed neither alternative. He had his elec[467]*467ti'on to pay the 400 dollars at the end of six months, or account, or to pay the 600 dollars at the end of one year, or account for the profits ; bdt having totally failed, he has lost his election, and the plaintiff may now elect for himself. This is a settled principle. The case of 13 Edw. IV. pl. 12. and which is abridged in Bro. (Dette, pl. 159.) established this rule. That was debt upon an obligation to pay 20/. or 20 bales of wool, and the plaintiff demanded the 20l. or 20 Pigot, J. and Brian, J. held, that before the day of payment the obligor had his election to tender which of them he would, but that, after the day of payment, and no tender made, the obligee had his election to demand which he would. But Brian, J. admitted, that if a man be bound to pay 20l. at Easter, or 10l. at Michaelmas, here, although he paid not at the first day, he can pay at the second day. In Dyer, 18. a. Baldwin, J. and Englefielde, J. recognised the same doctrine; and the cases cited from Cro. Eliz. and Cro. Jac. are to the -same effect.

The sale which the defendant made of his right, un-i der the contract in September, 1807', precluded him from the ability to account, as agent or factor, for the proceeds, and he is now bound to pay the 600 dollars.

The motion, therefore, on the part of the plaintiff, for a new trial, must be granted, 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

Related

Trustees of Columbia University v. Kalvin
132 Misc. 601 (New York Supreme Court, 1928)
Sperry & Hutchinson Co. v. Siegel, Cooper & Co.
140 N.E. 864 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1923)
Storm v. Rosenthal
156 A.D. 544 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1913)
Maier v. Rebstock
92 A.D. 587 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1904)
Duke v. Griffith
45 P. 276 (Utah Supreme Court, 1896)
Drake v. Harrison
33 N.W. 81 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1887)
Wheeler v. New Brunswick & Canada Railroad
115 U.S. 29 (Supreme Court, 1885)
Marlor v. Texas & P. R.
21 F. 383 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York, 1884)
Turnbull v. Seymour, Sabin & Co.
17 N.W. 278 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1883)
Brumby v. Barnard
60 Ga. 292 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1878)
Graham v. People
63 Barb. 468 (New York Supreme Court, 1872)
Bickett v. White
1 Cin. Sup. Ct. Rep. 170 (Ohio Superior Court, Cincinnati, 1871)
Bryant v. Erskine
55 Me. 153 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1867)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
7 Johns. 465, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mnitt-v-clark-nysupct-1811.