Doolin v. Ward
New York Supreme Court
IN error, on certiorari, from the iustice’s court, in ^ ' NeW-'Tork. The return stated, that Ward sued Doolin, by warrant, and declared against him, for a breach of contract, to his damage 50 dollars. Doolin pleaded the general issue with notice of a set-off.
Read the full summary
IN error, on certiorari, from the iustice’s court, in ^ ' NeW-'Tork. The return stated, that Ward sued Doolin, by warrant, and declared against him, for a breach of contract, to his damage 50 dollars. Doolin pleaded the general issue with notice of a set-off. Upon the trial Ward pro- ’ r f yed, that on the 10th day of July, 1809, certain articles . J v being about to be sold, at the navy-yard, at Brooklyn, by auction; and both defendant and plaintiff being anxr ° ions to purchase, it was agreed between them, that Ward would not bid against Doolin, and that Doolin should buy in the articles,…
1Per curiam
The contract declared on was without consideration and void. It was also against public policy, and tended injuriously to affect the character and the value of sales at auction. The judgment below must be reversed.
Van Ness, J. said he concurred in the opinion of the court on the single point, that this was a nudum pactum.
Judgment reversed.
2Cited by33 opinions
- Santa Clara Valley Mill and Lumber Co. v. HayesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
- Stanton v. AllenNew York Supreme Court · 1848
- Fort v. BurchNew York Supreme Court · 1849
- Loyd v. MaloneIllinois Supreme Court · 1859
- Brooks v. CooperSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1893
28 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.