Rice v. Peet

New York Supreme Court

Rice v. Peet

15 Johns. 503

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedOctober 15, 1818

StatusPublished

Cited by19 cases

This text of 15 Johns. 503 (Rice v. Peet) 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

Rice v. Peet, 15 Johns. 503 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1818).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The judgment must be affirmed. Admitting the pendency of another suit by the same plaintiff against the same defendant to have been duly proved, it formed no objection to this action ; it was for a distinct matter, and the plaintiff had a right to bring separate suits. Nov was there any legal objection to the plaintiff’s showing that this note ' was obtained from him at a time when he was incapable of making any contract; and the jury have considered that fact as made out by proof. But there is another ground on which the plaintiff had good right to recover the money received by the defendant on that note. It was received by the defendant without consideration; the contract for the exchange of farms was void by the statute of frauds, being by paroi only. The judgment must, accordingly, be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

The judgment must be affirmed. Admitting the pendency of another suit by the same plaintiff against the same defendant to have been duly proved, it formed no objection to this action ; it was for a distinct matter, and the plaintiff had a right to bring separate suits. Nov was there any legal objection to the plaintiff’s showing that this note ' was obtained from him at a time when he was incapable of making any contract; and the jury have considered that fact as made out by proof. But there is another ground on which the plaintiff had good right to recover the money received by the defendant on that note. It was received by the defendant without consideration; the contract for the exchange of farms was void by the statute of frauds, being by paroi only. The judgment must, accordingly, be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

15 Johns. 503, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rice-v-peet-nysupct-1818.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack