Cunningham v. Morrell
New York Supreme Court
J. DUER, for the plaintiffs, moved to set aside the report of the . r . . . - referees in this cause. It was an action ot covenant. Articles ot agreement were entered into between the parties relative to making a turnpike road.
Read the full summary
J. DUER, for the plaintiffs, moved to set aside the report of the . r . . . - referees in this cause. It was an action ot covenant. Articles ot agreement were entered into between the parties relative to making a turnpike road. The material covenant was as follows% “ The party of the first part agrees to pay to the party of the second part, for completing the whole of the aforesaid enumerated articles of covenant and agreement, the sum of 6,000 dollars, to be paid on or before the 20th October, 1810, in instalments, as the work progresses, in cash and stock of the said company, in the form…
1Opinion of the Court
Kent, Ch. J.
delivered the opinion- of the court. We cannot distinguish this case, so as to take it out of the operation of the cases of Sears v. Fowler, and Havens v. Bush. (2 Johns. Rep. 272. 387.) 'Those cases were governed by the English decision, in Terry v. Duntze; (2 H. Bl. 389.) but from a more full, consideration of the subject, we are now led to believe that the court of C. B. carried too far the principle of mutual and independent covenants. It is true, that if by the terms of the contract, the money is to be paid by a day certain, and which is to happen, before the performance of…
2Cited by21 opinions
- Philadelphia, Wilmington & Baltimore Railroad v. HowardSupreme Court of the United States · 1852
- Quarrier v. Peabody Insurance Co.West Virginia Supreme Court · 1877
- McKnight v. DunlopNew York Supreme Court · 1848
- Drake v. GoreeSupreme Court of Alabama · 1853
- Partridge v. ForsythSupreme Court of Alabama · 1856
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.