M'Curtie v. Stevens
New York Supreme Court
Error from the Schenectady common pleas.. M’Curtie declared in the common pleas, in an action of debt on a bond executed to him by. Stevens, on the 15th April, 1826, conditioned that Stevens should, on or before the 9th March, 1829, execute to him a quit-claim deed of about 2-1- acres of land; and that until the 9th March, 1829, he, M’Curtie, should be allowed to occupy and possess the land, free of rent.
Read the full summary
Error from the Schenectady common pleas.. M’Curtie declared in the common pleas, in an action of debt on a bond executed to him by. Stevens, on the 15th April, 1826, conditioned that Stevens should, on or before the 9th March, 1829, execute to him a quit-claim deed of about 2-1- acres of land; and that until the 9th March, 1829, he, M’Curtie, should be allowed to occupy and possess the land, free of rent. The plaintiff assigned for breaches of the bond, that he had not been permitted to occupy the premises free of rent; and that the defendant did not, on the 29th March, 1829, execute such…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
Nelson, J.
The revised statutes, 2 R. S. 406, § 77, make a sealed instrument only presumptive evidence of a sufficient consideration, and permits it to be rebutted the same as if not sealed. The testimony therefore offered, to disprove the consideration of the bond in question, was proper. The statute only altered a rule of evidence, and did not impair the contract. It gave to the defendant a new defence in law, the benefit of which was before available only by means of a cross action, or in another forum. Was a failure of consideration proved? The plaintiff was legally liable to…
2Cited by9 opinions
- Le Roy v. BeardSupreme Court of the United States · 1850
- Mann v. Eckford's ExecutorsNew York Supreme Court · 1836
- Wilson v. Baptist Education SocietyNew York Supreme Court · 1851
- Adams v. HullNew York Supreme Court · 1845
- Childs v. BarnumNew York Supreme Court · 1851
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.