Jarvis v. Peck
New York Court of Chancery
This was an appeal from a decree of the assistant vice chancellor of the first'circuit, in a foreclosure suit. The complainants’ bill was filed to obtain satisfaction of the balance due upon a bond and mortgage dated on the 11th of March, 1836, but actually executed three days thereafter, conditioned for the payment to Jarvis & Tremain, the original mortgagees, of the sum of $2000, in February 1835. The bond was executed by the defendants Gunn & Peck, and the mortgage by…
Read the full summary
This was an appeal from a decree of the assistant vice chancellor of the first'circuit, in a foreclosure suit. The complainants’ bill was filed to obtain satisfaction of the balance due upon a bond and mortgage dated on the 11th of March, 1836, but actually executed three days thereafter, conditioned for the payment to Jarvis & Tremain, the original mortgagees, of the sum of $2000, in February 1835. The bond was executed by the defendants Gunn & Peck, and the mortgage by Peck and wife. The answer of the defendants admitted the execution of the bond and mortgage, but set up as a defence to the…
1Opinion of the Court
The Chancellor.
I think the defendants failed in this case in proving the defence set up in their answer. The substance of the defence is that the only consideration for the bond and mortgage was an illegal agreement, in restraint of trade1,’ and that such agreement being void as against public policy there was in fact no consideration whatever for the bond and mortgage. Upon such an answer, if the defendants fail in proving that the $100,000 bond was the sole consideration, I do not think they are at liberty to insist that their proofs make out a defence of a different character | to wit,…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Nobles v. BatesNew York Supreme Court · 1827
- Perkins v. LymanMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1813
3Cited by11 opinions
- Peabody v. NorfolkMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1868
- O. & W. Thum Co. v. TloczynskiMichigan Supreme Court · 1897
- Vulcan Powder Co. v. Hercules Powder Co.California Supreme Court · 1892
- Casey v. Holmes, Bott & EarleSupreme Court of Alabama · 1846
- Mallinckrodt Chemical Works v. NemnichMissouri Court of Appeals · 1899
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.