Van Santwood v. Sandford

New York Supreme Court

Van Santwood v. Sandford

12 Johns. 197

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedMay 15, 1815

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 12 Johns. 197 (Van Santwood v. Sandford) 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

Van Santwood v. Sandford, 12 Johns. 197 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1815).

Pincite

Opinion

Spencer, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court. The demurrer to the fourth count is well taken; the action is covenant, and it cannot be maintained but on a deed. The only averment or allegation of a deed is, “ and hereupon the defendant, on the 24th day of March, in the year aforesaid, entered into a guaranty, covenant, and agreement, in the words and figures followingthen the agreement is set out in hcec verba, with a ¡conclusion, that it was signed and sealed with the name of the [198]*198defendant, and the locus sigilli, purporting to be a literal oyer of the agreement.

jj. must appear that the contract was under seal, and the law will not intend that it was sealed, unless it be expressly averred to be so, and though the bond or déed, upon oyer, recite, “ in witness whereof we have hereunto set our hands and seals,” yet that does not amount to such an averment, but. that the party must show that the bond or deed was actually sealed by the other. These principles will be found in Cabel v. Vaughan, (1 Saun. 291. note 1,

*) where all the cases are carefully and accurately collected. There are some words of art,' such as indenture, deed, or writing obligatory, which, of themselves, import that the instrument was sealed ; but if it be alleged that J. S. by his certain writing, demised or covenanted, without averring that it was sealed, the court will not intend that the writing was sealed. (Cro. Eliz. 571. Ld. Ray. 2537. 8 Com. Dig. Fait (A. 2.) Pleader, 2 W. 9. 14.)

In the case of Warren v. Lynch, (5 Johns. 244.) this court decided that a scrawl for a seal, with an (L. S.) was not a seal, and deserved no notice, and that calling a paper a deed will not make it one, if it want the requisite formalities. - The oyer of the contract, therefore, set out in the count under consideration, can have no effect; for we cannot tell that the original differs from it, or possesses any of the properties of a seal.

The other objections taken by the defendant’s counsel are not tenable, but it is not now necessary to consider them, as-the count is bad for the reasons assigned.

Judgment for the' defendant, with leave to amend on the usual terms.

Chitty, 348.

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

Spencer, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court. The demurrer to the fourth count is well taken; the action is covenant, and it cannot be maintained but on a deed. The only averment or allegation of a deed is, “ and hereupon the defendant, on the 24th day of March, in the year aforesaid, entered into a guaranty, covenant, and agreement, in the words and figures followingthen the agreement is set out in hcec verba, with a ¡conclusion, that it was signed and sealed with the name of the [198]*198defendant, and the locus sigilli, purporting to be a literal oyer of the agreement.

jj. must appear that the contract was under seal, and the law will not intend that it was sealed, unless it be expressly averred to be so, and though the bond or déed, upon oyer, recite, “ in witness whereof we have hereunto set our hands and seals,” yet that does not amount to such an averment, but. that the party must show that the bond or deed was actually sealed by the other. These principles will be found in Cabel v. Vaughan, (1 Saun. 291. note 1,

*) where all the cases are carefully and accurately collected. There are some words of art,' such as indenture, deed, or writing obligatory, which, of themselves, import that the instrument was sealed ; but if it be alleged that J. S. by his certain writing, demised or covenanted, without averring that it was sealed, the court will not intend that the writing was sealed. (Cro. Eliz. 571. Ld. Ray. 2537. 8 Com. Dig. Fait (A. 2.) Pleader, 2 W. 9. 14.)

In the case of Warren v. Lynch, (5 Johns. 244.) this court decided that a scrawl for a seal, with an (L. S.) was not a seal, and deserved no notice, and that calling a paper a deed will not make it one, if it want the requisite formalities. - The oyer of the contract, therefore, set out in the count under consideration, can have no effect; for we cannot tell that the original differs from it, or possesses any of the properties of a seal.

The other objections taken by the defendant’s counsel are not tenable, but it is not now necessary to consider them, as-the count is bad for the reasons assigned.

Judgment for the' defendant, with leave to amend on the usual terms.

Chitty, 348.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 Johns. 197, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/van-santwood-v-sandford-nysupct-1815.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack