Phelps v. . Bostwick
New York Court of Appeals
Appeal from the Supreme Court. On the trial, these facts appeared: On the 29th of June, 1854, the plaintiff left, or deposited, with the defendant, the sum of $200, and took from him a receipt, in these words: “ Received, Corning, June 29, 1854, of John C. Phelps, two hundred dollars, which is to be indorsed on contract ¡No. 454, given by Corning and Fellows to Dexter Davis, for the south halves of lots 9 and 10 in block 48 in the village of Corning, whenever said contract…
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Supreme Court. On the trial, these facts appeared: On the 29th of June, 1854, the plaintiff left, or deposited, with the defendant, the sum of $200, and took from him a receipt, in these words: “ Received, Corning, June 29, 1854, of John C. Phelps, two hundred dollars, which is to be indorsed on contract ¡No. 454, given by Corning and Fellows to Dexter Davis, for the south halves of lots 9 and 10 in block 48 in the village of Corning, whenever said contract is presented tomehy said Phelps, duly assigned to him.” Corning, Fellows, the defendant Bostwiok, and others, had jointly…
1Opinion of the CourtDavies, J.
I am unable to see upon what ground the defendant can rightfully claim to retain the plaintiff’s money, the contingency upon which he was to retain it, by the agreement of the parties, never having happened. The transaction is a plain and simple one, and is enshrouded in no mystery. It is clear that the plaintiff contemplated the procurement of an assignment of the contract. Upon the happening of that event, he would become the debtor of the defendant for the amount due on the contract. It is equally clear that he did not intend to, and did not, in fact, become such debtor, unless he procured…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Phyfe v. . EimerNew York Court of Appeals · 1871