Armstrong v. Masten
New York Supreme Court
THIS was an action of covenant. The plaintiff declared on a covenant in a lease, dated the 1st of May, 1803, of premises in Rhincbedc, for the term of 9 years; and assigned as a breach that the defendant did not repair, &c. The defendant pleaded non est factum, with notice of the special matter to be given in evidence, as a defence and a bar to the action.
Read the full summary
THIS was an action of covenant. The plaintiff declared on a covenant in a lease, dated the 1st of May, 1803, of premises in Rhincbedc, for the term of 9 years; and assigned as a breach that the defendant did not repair, &c. The defendant pleaded non est factum, with notice of the special matter to be given in evidence, as a defence and a bar to the action. The cause was tried before Mr. Justice Spencer, at the Dutchess circuit, in Nope?nber, 1813. The plaintiff produced and proved the lease, and offered to prove that the demised premises were not repaired, &c. according to the tenor and…
1Per curiam
The submission and award is a bar to this action. There were some distinctions formerly made in the manner of pleading an award, with respect to the necessity of awarding a performance of the thing awarded. In the case of Freeman v. Barnard, (1 Ld. Raym. 247, 248.) Lord Holt said, where an award creates a new duty, instead of that which was in controversy, the party ■ has a remedy for it upon the award; .therefore, if a party resort to demand that which was referred and submitted, the arbitrament is a good bar against such action. Contra: where the award does not create a new duty, but only…
2Cited by8 opinions
- Fruehauf Corp. v. Review Board Employment Security DivisionIndiana Court of Appeals · 1971
- Walters v. Hutchins' AdministratrixIndiana Supreme Court · 1867
- Groat v. PrachtSupreme Court of Kansas · 1884
- Ressequie v. BrownsonNew York Supreme Court · 1848
- Terre Haute & Logansport Railroad v. HarrisIndiana Supreme Court · 1890
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.