Legal Opinion

James v. . Burchell

New York Court of Appeals

Decided September 21, 1880PublishedCited by 23 opinions

Appeal from judgment of the General Term of the Court of Common Pleas in and for the city and county of New York, affirming a judgment in favor of defendant, entered upon a decision of the court on trial without a jury. (Reported below, 7 Daly, 531.) This action was brought to recover damages for the alleged failure of defendant to perform a contract.

Read the full summary

Appeal from judgment of the General Term of the Court of Common Pleas in and for the city and county of New York, affirming a judgment in favor of defendant, entered upon a decision of the court on trial without a jury. (Reported below, 7 Daly, 531.) This action was brought to recover damages for the alleged failure of defendant to perform a contract. On January 11, 1871, the parties entered into a contract by which the plaintiff, Sarah James, in consideration of one dollar, agreed “ to sell and convey, or cause to be conveyed,” as there- • inafter stated, to the defendant, four lots of land…

1Opinion of the CourtMiller, J.

The plaintiffs, in their contract with the defendant, covenanted that Sarah James, one of them, was seized in her own right of a good title to the premises in fee simple which were to be conveyed to the defendant; and it was further provided, that the plaintiffs, if they so desire, could mortgage each of the lots to the amount of $15,000. On the same day after the contract bears date, and when the parties acknowledged its execution, the plaintiffs conveyed the. premises by warranty deed to one Findull, subject to no incumbrances whatever, f The question presented is, whether the plaintiffs…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Robb v. MontgomeryNew York Supreme Court · 1822
  2. Judson v. WassNew York Supreme Court · 1814

3Cited by23 opinions

  1. Eddy v. . DavisNew York Court of Appeals · 1889
  2. Computer Possibilities Unlimited, Inc. v. Mobil Oil Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2002
  3. Foxley v. RichUtah Supreme Court · 1909
  4. In Re Asia Global Crossing, Ltd.United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · 2005
  5. In Re Asia Global Crossing, Ltd.United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · 2005

18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API