Woodworth v. . Bennett
New York Court of Appeals
Appeal from a judgment of the General Term in the fifth judicial district, affirming a judgment of the Oneida Special Term, allowing a counter claim to the defendant of $100. The trial was before Justice Morgan without a jury. The facts in this case sufficiently appear in the opinion of the court. that an express promise can only revive a precedent good consideration. (3 Bos. & Pull., note, 249; Smith v. Ware, 13 Johns., 258.) That a penalty implies a prohibition.
Read the full summary
Appeal from a judgment of the General Term in the fifth judicial district, affirming a judgment of the Oneida Special Term, allowing a counter claim to the defendant of $100. The trial was before Justice Morgan without a jury. The facts in this case sufficiently appear in the opinion of the court. that an express promise can only revive a precedent good consideration. (3 Bos. & Pull., note, 249; Smith v. Ware, 13 Johns., 258.) That a penalty implies a prohibition. (1 Kent. 9th ed., 525; Griffith v. Wells, 3 Denio, 226; Plowden, 206, g; 7 Wend., 31.) Also citing, on the general question of…
1Opinion of the Court
Church, Ch. J.
The point in this case is, whether the court below erred in allowing to the defendant the sum of $100 as an offset. The facts are substantially as follows: The plaintiff, defendant, Stephens and Truesdell, made an agreement in the nature of a copartnership, to propose or bid for public work on the Seneca river improvement. The hid was to be put in in the name of the plaintiff alone, the defendant and Stephens to become sureties. Truesdell was at the time an engineer in the employ of the State on the cañáis. The bid was made in the name of the plaintiff, in accordance with the…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Merritt v. MillardNew York Court of Appeals · 1868
3Cited by52 opinions
- Stone v. FreemanNew York Court of Appeals · 1948
- Hofferman v. SimmonsNew York Court of Appeals · 1943
- Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati & Indianapolis Railway Co. v. ClosserIndiana Supreme Court · 1890
- Shearman v. . the Niagara Fire Ins. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1871
- United States v. Bonanno Organized Crime Family of La Cosa NostraCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1989
47 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.