Spalding v. Vandercook

New York Supreme Court

Spalding v. Vandercook

2 Wend. 431

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedMay 15, 1829

StatusPublished

Cited by39 cases

This text of 2 Wend. 431 (Spalding v. Vandercook) 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

Spalding v. Vandercook, 2 Wend. 431 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1829).

Pincite

Opinion

By the Court, Savage, Ch. J.

This case presents two points : 1. Whether the partial failure of consideration can. be given in evidence, to reduce the amount of the plaintiff’s • recover}-, and 2. Whether the payment of money into court, precludes all defence.

In Becker v. Vrooman, (13 Johns. R. 302,) it is settled, that deceit in the sale of a chattel may be shewn in bar, or in mitigation. The same principle will admit the defence in this case, provided the defendant is not precluded by the payment of money into court generally. The cases on this point are not uniform; they are all considered in 2 Archb. Pr. 184) where it is shewn that the true rule is, that payment of money into court admits the cause or causes of action stated in the declaration, to the amount paid in, but nothing more. Beyond that amount the defendant may make his defence, A new trial must therefore be granted; costs to abide the event-.

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

By the Court, Savage, Ch. J.

This case presents two points : 1. Whether the partial failure of consideration can. be given in evidence, to reduce the amount of the plaintiff’s • recover}-, and 2. Whether the payment of money into court, precludes all defence.

In Becker v. Vrooman, (13 Johns. R. 302,) it is settled, that deceit in the sale of a chattel may be shewn in bar, or in mitigation. The same principle will admit the defence in this case, provided the defendant is not precluded by the payment of money into court generally. The cases on this point are not uniform; they are all considered in 2 Archb. Pr. 184) where it is shewn that the true rule is, that payment of money into court admits the cause or causes of action stated in the declaration, to the amount paid in, but nothing more. Beyond that amount the defendant may make his defence, A new trial must therefore be granted; costs to abide the event-.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 Wend. 431, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/spalding-v-vandercook-nysupct-1829.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack