Flint v. Clark
New York Supreme Court
.THIS was an action of covenant. The declaration stated, that on the 24th of September, 1803, articles of agreement were made and sealed by the parties, by which the defendant cove- ^ 1 v v i 'i i ■. nanted. that the defendant, and one Cyrus Clark, should submit a certain- controversy, between them and the - plaintiff, concerniDg the nondulfilment of an agreement, before that time made, .between the defendant and Cyrus.
Read the full summary
.THIS was an action of covenant. The declaration stated, that on the 24th of September, 1803, articles of agreement were made and sealed by the parties, by which the defendant cove- ^ 1 v v i 'i i ■. nanted. that the defendant, and one Cyrus Clark, should submit a certain- controversy, between them and the - plaintiff, concerniDg the nondulfilment of an agreement, before that time made, .between the defendant and Cyrus. Clark, and the plaintiff, respecting the building certain chimneys, by the defendant and Cyrus Clark, for the plaintiff, to arbitration ; and that, whatever sum of moneyj the…
1Opinion of the CourtPlatt, J.
I think thé demurrer is good ; for, allowing all the averments in the declaration to be true, the plaintiff is not entitled to recover. The covenant, as set out in the declaration, does not bind the defendant, to do any act; he did not engage to endorse a receipt on the note for the amount of the award. It was an agreement by one of the joint creditors of the plaintiff, that the sum to be awarded should be deemed a payment pro tanto on the note; and that the plaintiff should have the full benefit of it, as a part satisfaction of the note. All the right and benefit which accrue to the…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Walker v. BrownIllinois Supreme Court · 1862
- Davis v. . SpencerNew York Court of Appeals · 1862