Wilbur v. How
New York Supreme Court
IN error, on certiorari, from a justice’s court. How brought his action against Wilbur before the justice. The plaintiff in his declaration stated, that a contract or job, for making a certain road, was set up at auction, and it was agreed between the plaintiff and defendant, that if either of the parties should bid off the job, it should be divided between them; and that Wilbur bid off the job, but refused to give How a share in it according to his agreement, for the breach…
Read the full summary
IN error, on certiorari, from a justice’s court. How brought his action against Wilbur before the justice. The plaintiff in his declaration stated, that a contract or job, for making a certain road, was set up at auction, and it was agreed between the plaintiff and defendant, that if either of the parties should bid off the job, it should be divided between them; and that Wilbur bid off the job, but refused to give How a share in it according to his agreement, for the breach of which the plaintiff claimed damages, and the jury found a verdict for the plaintiff for twenty dollars, on which the…
1Per curiam
This case comes within the principle laid down in Doolin v. Ward. (6 Johns. Rep. 194.) The contract was a nudum pactum, and a fraud on the vendor. The judgment below must be reversed.
Judgment reversed.
2Cited by16 opinions
- United States v. Addyston Pipe & Steel Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1898
- Santa Clara Valley Mill and Lumber Co. v. HayesCalifornia Supreme Court · 1888
- Loyd v. MaloneIllinois Supreme Court · 1859
- Hoffman v. McMullenCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1897
- Kine v. TurnerOregon Supreme Court · 1895
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.