Williams v. Wieting

New York Supreme Court

Williams v. Wieting

3 Thomp. & Cook 439

DecidedApril 15, 1874

StatusPublished

This text of 3 Thomp. & Cook 439 (Williams v. Wieting) 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

Williams v. Wieting, 3 Thomp. & Cook 439 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1874).

Pincite

Opinion

Gilbert, J.

The facts proved by the defendant constitute a good counter-claim. 2 Wait’s Pr. 431. Although it does not appear that the plaintiff was benefited by the sale of the horses, yet they were purchased by the defendant on the faith of his promise that if they were not as he represented he would be responsible. The risk incurred by the defendant in paying the price of the horses was a sufficient consideration for the defendant’s promise. It is not necessary in such a case that a benefit to the promisor should appear. It is sufficient that a risk is incurred by the promisee, and that the promise is the inducement to the transaction. Sands v. Crooke, 46 N. Y. 564; Chit, on Cont. (11th Am. ed.) 28.

The counter-claim was not well pleaded. But the objection of the plaintiff was not put upon that ground. If it had been, no doubt the justice would have ordered an amendment. No injustice can be done by treating the pleading as having been amended. Bate v. Graham, 11 N. Y. 237.

The plaintiff cannot complain that the judgment against him is too small.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

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

Gilbert, J.

The facts proved by the defendant constitute a good counter-claim. 2 Wait’s Pr. 431. Although it does not appear that the plaintiff was benefited by the sale of the horses, yet they were purchased by the defendant on the faith of his promise that if they were not as he represented he would be responsible. The risk incurred by the defendant in paying the price of the horses was a sufficient consideration for the defendant’s promise. It is not necessary in such a case that a benefit to the promisor should appear. It is sufficient that a risk is incurred by the promisee, and that the promise is the inducement to the transaction. Sands v. Crooke, 46 N. Y. 564; Chit, on Cont. (11th Am. ed.) 28.

The counter-claim was not well pleaded. But the objection of the plaintiff was not put upon that ground. If it had been, no doubt the justice would have ordered an amendment. No injustice can be done by treating the pleading as having been amended. Bate v. Graham, 11 N. Y. 237.

The plaintiff cannot complain that the judgment against him is too small.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 Thomp. & Cook 439, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-wieting-nysupct-1874.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack