Atwater v. Fowler
New York Court of Chancery
On the twenty-eighth day of May, in the year one thousand eight hundred and twelve, Russell Atwater, the complainant, and Theodosius Fowler, the defendant, entered into a written . agreement.
Read the full summary
On the twenty-eighth day of May, in the year one thousand eight hundred and twelve, Russell Atwater, the complainant, and Theodosius Fowler, the defendant, entered into a written . agreement. It recited, that the defendant had then lately purchased United States’ bank stock at a price below par, and was to make further purchases of such stock at an advantageous price; and that as the complainant was entitled to subscribe for shares in the stock of the Bank of America, which was then about to be incorporated, it was agreed between them that the purchases of stock made by the defendant, as well…
1Opinion of the Court
The Vice-Chancellor.
Two grounds of defence are taken in this case:
First, that very soon after receiving the statement and letter of the twenty-sixth of June, one thousand eight hundred and twelve, the complainant called upon him and, stating his inability to pay the balance, voluntarily abandoned all interest in the contract and agreed to rescind it, making no claim for thirteen years afterwards. And, secondly, the statute of limitations.
1. The allegations of the answer in relation to the complainant’s inability to pay and his abandoning and rescinding the contract, are not within the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- People v. President & Trustees of BrooklynNew York Supreme Court · 1828
3Cited by8 opinions
- Riddle v. WhitehillSupreme Court of the United States · 1890
- Stout v. Executors of SeabrookNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1878
- Harris & Jacoby v. HillegassCalifornia Supreme Court · 1880
- Henderson v. HicksCalifornia Supreme Court · 1881
- Todd v. Administrators of RaffertyNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1878
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.