Currie v. . White
New York Court of Appeals
Appeal from an order of the General Term of the Superior Court of the city of Eew York, affirming a judgment of the Special Term dismissing the complaint. The plaintiffs and the defendant were stock brokers in the city of ETew York.
Read the full summary
Appeal from an order of the General Term of the Superior Court of the city of Eew York, affirming a judgment of the Special Term dismissing the complaint. The plaintiffs and the defendant were stock brokers in the city of ETew York. Upon the 18th day of February, 1867, they entered into an agreement with each other, and executed as evidence thereof the following instruments: ¡New Yobk, 18th Feb., 1867. (1,000 shares.) We have purchased of C. G-. White one thousand (1,000) shares of the capital stock of the Hudson ¡River ¡R. ¡R., at one hundred and twenty-eight per cent, payable and…
1DissentAllen, J.
(dissenting.) The undertakings of the respective parties to the contract were dependent, and the acts they were bound to perform were concurrent and reciprocal. (Bank of Columbia v. Hagner, 1 Peters, 455; Dana v. King, 2 Pick., 156; Johnson v. Wygant, 11 W. R., 48.) The plaintiffs could not call upon the defendant to deliver the» 'stock except upon payment of the agreed price, neither could the defendant claim the money except upon a transfer and delivery of the stock. The acts of the parties in the performance of the contract were to be simultaneous, the agreement not contemplating a credit…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- President of the Bank of Columbia v. HagnerSupreme Court of the United States · 1828
- President of the Bank of the United States v. President of the Bank of GeorgiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1825
- Carman v. . PultzNew York Court of Appeals · 1860
- Bakeman v. PoolerNew York Supreme Court · 1836
- Hammond v. Gilmore's AdministratorSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1841
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.