Young v. Crundy

Supreme Court

Young v. Crundy

11 U.S. 548, 3 L. Ed. 435, 7 Cranch 548, 1813 U.S. LEXIS 450

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedMarch 16, 1813

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 11 U.S. 548 (Young v. Crundy) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Young v. Crundy, 11 U.S. 548, 3 L. Ed. 435, 7 Cranch 548, 1813 U.S. LEXIS 450 (1813).

Pincite

Opinion

Livingston, J.

delivered the opinion

of the Court as follows:

Whatever equity the Complainant may once have had against the payee or holder of the note for 1438 15 which was assigned to George Grundy, in consequence of the non-performance of the agreement of the 15th of May, 1795, this Courtis of opinion that all such equity was done away by the contract of the 6th September, 1798. This last contract was made for the express purpose of making the Complainants a compensation for the loss they had sustained, by the non-performance of the other, and was evidently received as an equivalent ór substitute therefor. By this latter contract then they were placed, as it respected the holders of all their notes, precisely in the same situation as if there bad been no want or failure of consideration of the agreement made in 1795. Whether the agreement of 1798 has been complied with it is not material to inquire, because, previous thereto, this note was held by Grundy, who cannot be affected by any claim which the Complainant may have against the other Defendants in con - sequence of any subsequent transactions between the parties.

The Court is of opinion that the decree of the Circuit Court be affirmed with costs.

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

Livingston, J.

delivered the opinion

of the Court as follows:

Whatever equity the Complainant may once have had against the payee or holder of the note for 1438 15 which was assigned to George Grundy, in consequence of the non-performance of the agreement of the 15th of May, 1795, this Courtis of opinion that all such equity was done away by the contract of the 6th September, 1798. This last contract was made for the express purpose of making the Complainants a compensation for the loss they had sustained, by the non-performance of the other, and was evidently received as an equivalent ór substitute therefor. By this latter contract then they were placed, as it respected the holders of all their notes, precisely in the same situation as if there bad been no want or failure of consideration of the agreement made in 1795. Whether the agreement of 1798 has been complied with it is not material to inquire, because, previous thereto, this note was held by Grundy, who cannot be affected by any claim which the Complainant may have against the other Defendants in con - sequence of any subsequent transactions between the parties.

The Court is of opinion that the decree of the Circuit Court be affirmed with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

11 U.S. 548, 3 L. Ed. 435, 7 Cranch 548, 1813 U.S. LEXIS 450, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/young-v-crundy-scotus-1813.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack