Mott v. Mott
New York Supreme Court
This cause was tried by the court without a jury. Orville H. Mott, the plaintiff’s intestate, and Walter Mott, the defendant, were partners in the practice of medicine.
Read the full summary
This cause was tried by the court without a jury. Orville H. Mott, the plaintiff’s intestate, and Walter Mott, the defendant, were partners in the practice of medicine. On the 8th day' of October, 1849, they entered into an -agreement under seal, by which Walter Mott, for and in consideration of the premises thereinafter mentioned, granted and sold unto the said Orville H. Mott “ the jars, bottles and other furniture belonging to the office, except stove, at first cost, and the stove for what it is worth, and the medicine now in the office for what Q-. R. Berwords or Vandercook shall appraise…
1Opinion of the CourtHand, J.
It is contended that by the death of the intestate the cause of action, if any, is extinguished; .that it is personal, and does not survive to his representatives. But the covenant was broken before the death of the intestate, and the right of action therefore was not affected by that event. Upon the death of the covenantee, his interest vested in his personal representatives, for the executors or administrators of any person are implied in himself. (Hurlstone on Bonds, 115. 3 Bac. Ab. 59. Toller, 157, 437. Platt on Cov. 453, 520. Chit. on Cont. 96. Siboni v. Kirkman, 1 M. & W. 418.) In some…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Chappel v. BrockwayNew York Supreme Court · 1839
- Smith v. SmithNew York Supreme Court · 1830
- Pearson v. Williams' administratorsNew York Supreme Court · 1840
3Cited by9 opinions
- Curtis v. . Van BerghNew York Court of Appeals · 1899
- McCaull v. BrahamU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Southern New York · 1883
- Niver v. RossmanNew York Supreme Court · 1853
- Barry v. HarrisSupreme Court of Vermont · 1877
- Poppenberg v. R. M. Owen & Co.New York Supreme Court · 1914
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.