Wilbur v. How
8 Johns. 444
Opinion
This case comes within the principle laid down in Doolin v. Ward. (6 Johns. Rep. 194.) The contract was a nudum pactum, and a fraud on the vendor. The judgment below must be reversed.
Judgment reversed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Wilbur v. How, 8 Johns. 444 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1811).
8 Johns. 444 (Wilbur v. How) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
In re the Accounting of Dreier
187 Misc. 244 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1946)
United States v. Addyston Pipe & Steel Co.
85 F. 271 (Sixth Circuit, 1898)
Hoffman v. McMullen
83 F. 372 (Ninth Circuit, 1897)
Kine v. Turner
41 P. 664 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1895)
Santa Clara Valley Mill and Lumber Co. v. Hayes
18 P. 391 (California Supreme Court, 1888)
Barrett v. Bath Paper Co.
13 S.C. 128 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1880)
Finlayson v. Lipscomb
16 Fla. 751 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1878)
Dudley v. Odom
5 S.C. 131 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1874)
Marsh v. Russell
2 Lans. 340 (New York Supreme Court, 1870)
Loyd v. Malone
23 Ill. 43 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1859)
Brisbane v. . Adams
3 N.Y. 129 (New York Court of Appeals, 1849)
Bellows v. Russell
20 N.H. 427 (Superior Court of New Hampshire, 1845)
Phippen v. Stickney
44 Mass. 384 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1841)
Myers v. Hodges
2 Watts 381 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1834)
Gulick v. Ward
10 N.J.L. 87 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1828)