Betts v. Turner
New York Supreme Court
THIS was an action of covenant, and the declaration stated in substance, that John Baker, on the 17th October, 1795, gave a promissory note to WilHam Hooker, by which he promised to pay to him, or his order, on the 1st day of April, 1797, 833 dollarsand 33 cents; that the defendant sold the note to the plaintiff, 'to be by him collected at his own risk and costs, as it respected the ability of Baker and Hooker, and that the defendant covenanted to and with the plaintiff, to…
Read the full summary
THIS was an action of covenant, and the declaration stated in substance, that John Baker, on the 17th October, 1795, gave a promissory note to WilHam Hooker, by which he promised to pay to him, or his order, on the 1st day of April, 1797, 833 dollarsand 33 cents; that the defendant sold the note to the plaintiff, 'to be by him collected at his own risk and costs, as it respected the ability of Baker and Hooker, and that the defendant covenanted to and with the plaintiff, to pay him 2,000 dollars when requireci, "in case the plaintiff should take all and every legal step as the law directed,…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam, delivered by KENT, J.
By the co~ venant, it appears, that the plaintiff was to do a previous act, to entitle him to maintain a suit on the covenant. This previous act, like all other stipulations in covenants, must be done fairly and faithfully, according to the spirit and intention of the agreement. It may be proper to observe, as a rule in the construction of covenants, that they are to be performed according to their spirit rather than their letter, “ ut res magis valeat quam per eat.”
The beneficial end that the parties had in view, is to be primarily regarded and enforced ;…
2Cited by3 opinions
- McCauley v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1855
- People v. GreenNew York Supreme Court · 1834
- Reynolds v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1847