Raymond v. Bearnard

12 Johns. 274
CourtNew York Supreme Court
DecidedAugust 15, 1815
StatusPublished
Cited by34 cases

This text of 12 Johns. 274 (Raymond v. Bearnard) 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
Raymond v. Bearnard, 12 Johns. 274 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1815).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This case comes before the éonrt on a writ of error, to the common pleas of Orange County ; and the errors complained of arise out of a bill of exceptions tendered at the. trial. The declaration contains several counts on a special contract, and also the common money counts. Upon the trial, the plaintiff below failed, in the opinion of the court, in supporting the special contract, but they allowed him to recover back the money advanced at the time the contract was made. The [276]*276ground upon which tile plaintiff failed |n recovering on thp special contract, was, that he did not call for the delivery of the whiskey within the time limited by the contract; and when he did calí, and demand tile same, the defendants refused to deliver it, because the demand was not made in season. Thus, the defendants, by their own act, defeated a performance of the contract- There’is, therefore, no special agreement subsisting between the parties ; but the same has been put an end to by the election of the defendants. ' If the special agreement was in force, the plaintiff could not resort to the general counts. But the defendants themselves refusing to carry into effect the ¡contract, they ought not to be permitted to. set it up as the preiext for holding the money advancfed. If the contract is rescirided in part, it must be iñ toto ; and the plaintiff’s right to recover back the money paid, is undeniable, (1 Term Rep. 133. 1 Bos. & Pull. N. S. 354. 5 Johns. Rep. 87. 7 Johns. Rep. 132.) No demand, pf the money was necessary, before bringing thé action; nor did the tender set up extinguish the demand; the only effect of such tender is- to preclude any claim for interest. . The judgment of the court below must accordingly bp affirmed. , ,

Judgment affirmed.

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

Related

Rosenwasser v. Blyn Shoes, Inc.
159 N.E. 84 (New York Court of Appeals, 1927)
Bank of United States v. National City Bank
123 Misc. 801 (New York Supreme Court, 1924)
Petkus v. Bankas
123 Misc. 193 (New York Supreme Court, 1924)
Whiting v. Derr
121 A.D. 239 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1907)
Hanley v. Combs
87 P. 143 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1906)
Baird v. Winchester
72 F. 755 (Ninth Circuit, 1896)
Thompson v. Lyon
20 S.E. 812 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 1894)
Gauld v. Lipman
23 N.Y.S. 778 (New York Court of Common Pleas, 1893)
Strack v. Hurd
28 Abb. N. Cas. 142 (New York Supreme Court, 1892)
Murphy v. Gold & Stock Tel. Co.
3 N.Y.S. 804 (City of New York Municipal Court, 1889)
Levy v. . Loeb
89 N.Y. 386 (New York Court of Appeals, 1882)
Meade v. St. Louis Mutual Life Insurance
51 How. Pr. 1 (New York Supreme Court, 1875)
Fullager v. Reville
6 Thomp. & Cook 295 (New York Supreme Court, 1875)
Eaton v. Redick
1 Neb. 305 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1871)
Suber v. Pullin
1 S.C. 273 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1870)
Monroe v. Reynolds
47 Barb. 574 (New York Supreme Court, 1867)
Campau v. Shaw
15 Mich. 226 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1867)
Clarke v. Meigs
10 Bosw. 337 (The Superior Court of New York City, 1863)
Packer v. Button
35 Vt. 188 (Supreme Court of Vermont, 1862)
Fancher & Foot v. Goodman
29 Barb. 315 (New York Supreme Court, 1859)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
12 Johns. 274, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/raymond-v-bearnard-nysupct-1815.