Norris v. Lain

New York Supreme Court

Norris v. Lain

16 Johns. 151

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedMay 15, 1819

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 16 Johns. 151 (Norris v. Lain) 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

Norris v. Lain, 16 Johns. 151 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1819).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Here was a parol •■agreement for the sale of land, which is void by the statute of frauds; and being one single and entire contract, it was void in all its parts, and for every purpose. The preparation of the deed was a mere incident to the contract, and fell with it. If the purchaser had verbally agreed wjth the seller, to this effect: “ bring the deed, and if I then choose to refuse it, and vacate the agreement, I will pay for It,” the seller might maintain an action for the price of the deed. There would then, in fact, be two agreements; one for the sale of the land, which is not binding, and the other a valid agreement in regard to the deed. It is very clear, that the signing and aclcnow[152]*152ledging of the deed was not a part performance of the con tract, so,as to take the case out of the statute. (1 Com. Cont. 115, 116.) on

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

Per Curiam.

Here was a parol •■agreement for the sale of land, which is void by the statute of frauds; and being one single and entire contract, it was void in all its parts, and for every purpose. The preparation of the deed was a mere incident to the contract, and fell with it. If the purchaser had verbally agreed wjth the seller, to this effect: “ bring the deed, and if I then choose to refuse it, and vacate the agreement, I will pay for It,” the seller might maintain an action for the price of the deed. There would then, in fact, be two agreements; one for the sale of the land, which is not binding, and the other a valid agreement in regard to the deed. It is very clear, that the signing and aclcnow[152]*152ledging of the deed was not a part performance of the con tract, so,as to take the case out of the statute. (1 Com. Cont. 115, 116.) on

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

16 Johns. 151, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/norris-v-lain-nysupct-1819.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack