Patterson v. Patterson

13 Johns. 379
CourtNew York Supreme Court
DecidedAugust 15, 1816
StatusPublished
Cited by24 cases

This text of 13 Johns. 379 (Patterson v. Patterson) 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
Patterson v. Patterson, 13 Johns. 379 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1816).

Opinion

Van. Ness, J.,

'delivered’ the .opinion,, of the .court. The,. plaintiff is entitled to a reward for.-his services, iDecause ’the, .evidence repels the;- idea, that .they ivere to he .performed g^tnitously, .(Jacobson. v. The Executors of Le, Grange, 3 Johns. Rep. 200. Le Sage v. Coussmaker and others, Esp, N. P. Rep. 187.) ■ B.ut from-, the testimony of John Patterson, as well as of several- other witnesses, it. is evident' that the.plaintiff- was' ta1be 'Compensated for--his service's. by a'provision- to b,e made'for' him, by his father,. (the, defendant,)’In-ins will; and, of.course, that hp claim for,-.compensation'was' to be made inf his father’s'lifetitpe. . The, defendant is bound to make, arid it is to be presumed will .-make, s-.uch' a* provision for the plaintiff by his w-'i;ll, as will do. him. perfect justice, anct 'tyhichmay be perfectly satisfactory to.him, or which, in-j.udgmeat of law, may amount to. a satisfaction. Should the de-fe.idant wholly Overlook . .the plaintiff-in' his *Will, this -would .’fee sueñan-act of .iujusticef that'there' can be rib doubt‘the plaintiff-'might maintain an action, and. recover, a reasonable. compensation, for his services. ' This- suit, however, -is -pfemature, and cannot be supported,. The report- of 'the ,referees^ must, therefore, be set aside» • ■ • - ■ ■ ■ ■ . ' .

Motion-granted;,/

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

Related

Blease v. Commissioner
16 B.T.A. 972 (Board of Tax Appeals, 1929)
Murtha v. Donohoo
134 N.W. 406 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1912)
Dalby v. Maxfield
91 N.E. 420 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1910)
Einolf v. Thomson
103 N.W. 1026 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1905)
Edwards v. Slate
68 N.E. 342 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1903)
Townsend v. Vanderwerker
160 U.S. 171 (Supreme Court, 1895)
Cann v. Cann
20 S.E. 910 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1894)
Collier v. Rutledge
49 N.Y. St. Rep. 75 (New York Court of Appeals, 1892)
Schwab v. Pierro
46 N.W. 71 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1890)
Shimer v. Kinder
12 N.Y. St. Rep. 728 (New York Supreme Court, 1888)
Rice v. Hartman
4 S.E. 621 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1888)
Miller v. . Lash
85 N.C. 51 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1881)
De Moss v. Robinson
8 N.W. 712 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1881)
Bonesteel v. Van Etten
27 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 468 (New York Supreme Court, 1880)
Shakespeare v. Markham
17 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 311 (New York Supreme Court, 1877)
Lee v. Carter
52 Ind. 342 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1876)
Jilson v. Gilbert
26 Wis. 637 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1870)
Updike v. Broeck
32 N.J.L. 105 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1866)
Campbell v. Campbell
65 Barb. 639 (New York Supreme Court, 1866)
Bell v. Hewitt's Executors
24 Ind. 280 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1865)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
13 Johns. 379, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/patterson-v-patterson-nysupct-1816.