Miller v. Watson
New York Supreme Court
GifVi'RAL indebitatus assumpsit, for work, &c. money, &c. ami on an account stated, tried at the Seneca Circuit, 3 Septenrber 22d, 1S23; before Throop, 0. Judge. On the trial the plaintiff proved that his agent called on tlie defendant concerning certain land sold and conveyed by the defendant to the plaintiff, and for which the consideration money had been paid by the plaintiff. An action 1 1 J . . of ejectment had been brought against the plaintiff for this land.
Read the full summary
GifVi'RAL indebitatus assumpsit, for work, &c. money, &c. ami on an account stated, tried at the Seneca Circuit, 3 Septenrber 22d, 1S23; before Throop, 0. Judge. On the trial the plaintiff proved that his agent called on tlie defendant concerning certain land sold and conveyed by the defendant to the plaintiff, and for which the consideration money had been paid by the plaintiff. An action 1 1 J . . of ejectment had been brought against the plaintiff for this land. The defendant admitted that the title had failed, and struck a balance of what would be due to the plaintiff, wliich he promised…
1Opinion of the Court
Curia, per Sutherland, J.
This action cannot be sustained. The parol promise of the defendant, on which it is founded, was simply to re-pay the consideration money, which he had received from the plaintiff, witft interest. That he was bound to do by his covenant of warranty, if the defendant had been evicted. The deed from the defendant to the plaintiff, bore date December 15th, 1810. The promise proved, was made on the 15th July, 1816, less than six years after the giving of the deed, when no interest had accrued, which the plaintiff was not entitled to recover, in an action upon the covenant…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Staats v. Executors of Ten EyckNew York Supreme Court · 1805
- Wiest v. CritsingerNew York Supreme Court · 1809
3Cited by2 opinions
- Devin v. HendershottSupreme Court of Iowa · 1871
- Funk v. CreswellSupreme Court of Iowa · 1857