Croden v. Drew
The Superior Court of New York City
Br written agreement, dated April 30, 1853, between Drew and Michael Duncan, signed by both of them, Drew agreed to sell and convey a house and lot to Duncan for §8,500, the house to be fully finished by Drew, but when, the contract did not state. Duncan was to pay $300 down, §200 on the 3d of May, and on the delivery of the deed $1,500 cash, and $500 in stock, the balance, $6,000, being the amount of a mortgage then on the premises.
Read the full summary
Br written agreement, dated April 30, 1853, between Drew and Michael Duncan, signed by both of them, Drew agreed to sell and convey a house and lot to Duncan for §8,500, the house to be fully finished by Drew, but when, the contract did not state. Duncan was to pay $300 down, §200 on the 3d of May, and on the delivery of the deed $1,500 cash, and $500 in stock, the balance, $6,000, being the amount of a mortgage then on the premises. Duncan was to pay by satisfying the mortgage. There was no time named for the delivery of the deed. The §300 was paid down, no more has been paid. May 31, 1853,…
1Opinion of the CourtBosworth, J.
This is an action arising on contract. It is an action to recover money only. BTo judgment is prayed, except for the recovery of two sums, one of §1,000 and one of $300, and interest. Eb relief beyond that is sought.
*654A breach of the contract is stated as the ground of recovery. The contract is not one by which the defendant promises to pay money. He does not promise- to pay money in any event, and full performance of it would not require the payment of any. Still it is an action arising ex contractu, or on contract. The Code does not require that the contract should be one stipulating by its…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Tuttle v. SmithNew York Supreme Court · 1857
- McMullin v. MackeyNew York Supreme Court · 1889