Brisbane v. Pomeroy
New York Court of Common Pleas
Appeal from a judgment of this court entered upon the verdict of a jury rendered by direction of the court. The complaint alleged that on October 15th, 1873, defendants delivered to plaintiff their certain bond, conditioned for the payment of $19,000; that $12,000 remained unpaid; and demanded judgment therefor.
Read the full summary
Appeal from a judgment of this court entered upon the verdict of a jury rendered by direction of the court. The complaint alleged that on October 15th, 1873, defendants delivered to plaintiff their certain bond, conditioned for the payment of $19,000; that $12,000 remained unpaid; and demanded judgment therefor. Defendants admitted the making and delivery of the bond, and that $12,000 was unpaid, and pleaded by way of counterclaim and in defense: first, that the bond was given to secure part of the purchase price of land situated in New Jersey, conveyed by plaintiff to defendants by deed…
1Opinion of the CourtLarrmore, J.
[After stating the facts as above.]—The case as presented upon appeal rests mainly upon the amount of damages to which the respondent was entitled upon the facts as conceded. If no question of fraud had been involved the measure of damages was correctly stated by the learned judge, and in accordance with the rule laid down in Grant v. Tallman (20 N. Y. 191) and Braman v. Bingham (26 N. Y. 483). But Schiffer v. Dietz (83 N. Y. 300), holds that the mere concealment of the wife’s existence was sufficient to establish fraud, although the vendor believed his marriage invalid.
Upon the discovery of…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Krumm v. . BeachNew York Court of Appeals · 1884
- Schiffer v. . DietzNew York Court of Appeals · 1881
- Pumpelly v. . PhelpsNew York Court of Appeals · 1869
- Clark v. . BairdNew York Court of Appeals · 1853
- Staats v. Executors of Ten EyckNew York Supreme Court · 1805
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Constant v. LehmanSupreme Court of Kansas · 1893