Canfield v. Westcott
New York Supreme Court
Qn demurrer to the declaration. This was in covenant on articles of agreement under seal, dated March 21st, 1820, between the defendant. and the testator; whereby the defendant covenanted to pay the testator $416, with interest, &c. in four equal annual payments, the first instalment to be pgj¿ on or before the first day of January, 1825, &c. as the consideration of a lot of land.
Read the full summary
Qn demurrer to the declaration. This was in covenant on articles of agreement under seal, dated March 21st, 1820, between the defendant. and the testator; whereby the defendant covenanted to pay the testator $416, with interest, &c. in four equal annual payments, the first instalment to be pgj¿ on or before the first day of January, 1825, &c. as the consideration of a lot of land. The testator covenanted- that as soon as the defendant had fulfilled all the covenants on his part, he, the testator, would convey the lot to the defendant. The declaration averred that the two first instalments…
1Opinion of the Court
The Court,
without hearing J. Platt, who was to have argued against the demurrer, were clear that judgment must be for the plaintiff. They said the provision that this agreement should be void, was for the benefit of the vendor. On the vendee’s default, the vendor might, therefore, consider the agreement void at his own election; or affirm it, and brings his action on the covenants; and they said this had been often so held in much stronger cases; as where the provision in the articles was general and positive, in the words of both parties, that if the vendee failed to perform, the contract…
2Cited by14 opinions
- Maffet v. Oregon & Cal. RailroadOregon Supreme Court · 1905
- Bostwick v. . FrankfieldNew York Court of Appeals · 1878
- Dana v. St. Paul Investment Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1889
- Rottkamp v. EgerNew York Supreme Court · 1973
- Chambers v. AndersonSupreme Court of Kansas · 1893
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.