M'Millan v. Vanderlip
New York Supreme Court
IN ERROR, on certiorari, from a justice’s cou'rb VanderUp sued J. andvl. M‘Millan, by summons, before ayistice, in an action on the case.
Read the full summary
IN ERROR, on certiorari, from a justice’s cou'rb VanderUp sued J. andvl. M‘Millan, by summons, before ayistice, in an action on the case. He declared, stating his demand, September 26, 1812, to be for “ spinning 845 runs of yarn, at 3 pence/; The defendant pleaded the general issue, and there was a trial by jury. ‘ , The plaintiff proved that he had worked for the defendants below, .11 or 13 weeks; and-the witness stated, that the plaintiff said he was to work one year, to spin at three cents per run; but should not make wages, the roving was so bad.™ Another witness said. he understood from…
1Opinion of the CourtSpencer, J.
The ques-^on *S) whether the contract of the. defendant in error is an entire contract, operating as a condition precedent ^ and, as lsuch, necessary to be performed before the plaintiffs in error were liable ; or Whether we aré to consider the agreement,, to pay three cents per run, as a distinct "agreement, on the one side ;' and the promise to work for 10j months, as ihdependbnt and unconnected with the rate at which the defendant in error was to spin the yam.' It has been well observed "by Srejeant Williams, in a note to Pordage and Cole, (1 Saun. 320. note 4.) that the old cases…
2Cited by40 opinions
- United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. United States Ex Rel. Struthers Wells Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1908
- Wolfe v. . HowesNew York Court of Appeals · 1859
- Tipton v. . FeitnerNew York Court of Appeals · 1859
- McKnight v. DunlopNew York Supreme Court · 1848
- Britton v. TurnerSuperior Court of New Hampshire · 1834
35 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.