Burrell v. Root
New York Court of Appeals
The plaintiff brought this action to recover the purchase price of certain land situated in the State of Iowa, which he had offered to convey to the defendant, and the latter refused to receive.
Read the full summary
The plaintiff brought this action to recover the purchase price of certain land situated in the State of Iowa, which he had offered to convey to the defendant, and the latter refused to receive. This land was sold and conveyed by the defendant to the plaintiff, on the Ith day of April, 1860. And on that day the defendant, under his hand and seal, executed and delivered to the plaintiff an instrument, in writing, whereby, after reciting such sale and conveyance, he covenanted, promised and agreed to and with the plaintiff, that the land would be worth six dollars an acre in cash or its…
1Opinion of the CourtGeoveb, J.
The seal was prima facie evidence of a sufficient consideration for the defendant’s contract. (2 R. S., 407, § 77). At common law it would have, been conclusive. *498(2 Kent’s Com., 404 and notes.) There was no attempt by the defendant to show a want of consideration. The sufficiency of the consideration was therefore established. It is insisted by the counsel for the appellant, that the contract not having been signed by the plaintiff, is made void by the statute. (2 R. S., 135, § 8.) That section provides that every contract for the sale of lands or any interest therein, shall be void, unless…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- McWhorter v. McMahanNew York Court of Chancery · 1843
3Cited by8 opinions
- Hotel Woodward Co. v. Ford Motor Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1919
- Coe v. . ToughNew York Court of Appeals · 1889
- Siebros Finance Corp. v. FirmanAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1931
- Alamoe Realty Co. v. Mutual Trust Life InsuranceSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1938
- Wright v. SmithCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1901
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.