Legal Opinion

Bowen v. Bell

New York Supreme Court

Decided January 15, 1823PublishedCited by 52 opinions

THIS was an action of assumpsit, tried before Mr. Justice Woodworth, at the Washington Circuit, in June, 1821. The declaration contained a general count for land sold and conveyed to the defendant, and the money counts. It was proved, that the plaintiff owned four sixths of a certain farm, and the defendant two sixths, as tenants in common.

Read the full summary

THIS was an action of assumpsit, tried before Mr. Justice Woodworth, at the Washington Circuit, in June, 1821. The declaration contained a general count for land sold and conveyed to the defendant, and the money counts. It was proved, that the plaintiff owned four sixths of a certain farm, and the defendant two sixths, as tenants in common. It was agreed, that the land should be equally divided between them, ánd that the defendant should pay the plaintiff for one sixth part, ^ sul‘vey of the land was accordingly made, and mutual releases and quit-claim deeds were executed by the parties to…

1Opinion of the Court

Woodworth, J«

delivered the opinion of the Court, This is not a case within the statute of frauds. The contract was perfected by giving the deed. The claim now is, to pay the value3 the consideration to support the promise is the release of tfie plaintiff’s title. It is immaterial what Is the origin of the debt, provided it is founded qn a lawful consideration. This action is not on a contract for the sale of lands, or any interest in lands. The law raises the promise to pay, and, in such case, it is not within the statute of frauds, although it be raisecl from an agreement concerning an…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Davis v. HaydenMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1813

3Cited by52 opinions

  1. Stackpole v. ArnoldMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1814
  2. Gosselin v. Better Homes, Inc.Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1969
  3. Randall v. ConstansSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1885
  4. Rockhill v. SpraggsIndiana Supreme Court · 1857
  5. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fé Railroad v. EnglishSupreme Court of Kansas · 1887

47 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API