Nichols v. Bain
New York Supreme Court
THIS action originated in a justice’s court, and was brought to recover $25, subscribed to a paper of which the following is a copy: “In consideration of one dollar, to us in hand paid, receipt* of which is hereby acknowledged, and for other good and sufficient reasons, we hereby agree, severally, to pay to Hosea Nichols, or his order, the sum set opposite our respective names, &c. on condition that said Nichols shall purchase the mill property and water power, in the…
Read the full summary
THIS action originated in a justice’s court, and was brought to recover $25, subscribed to a paper of which the following is a copy: “In consideration of one dollar, to us in hand paid, receipt* of which is hereby acknowledged, and for other good and sufficient reasons, we hereby agree, severally, to pay to Hosea Nichols, or his order, the sum set opposite our respective names, &c. on condition that said Nichols shall purchase the mill property and water power, in the village of Fort Miller, owned by the heirs of the late Barent and John B. Bleecker, &c. and improve, and bring said water…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Gourt,
Jambs, J.
The purchase of the mill property and water power in the village of Fort Miller, owned by the heirs of Bleecker, its improvement, and bringing the water into use, were conditions precedent to a right of action on the instrument sued on. Such purchase could only be by deed, and therefore that instrument was the best, if not the only, admissible evidence of such purchase.
In averring due performance of all the conditions precedent, the plaintiff, in legal effect, asserted the purchase of said mill property and water power; and the general denial in the answer necessarily…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Taylor v. ScovilleNew York Supreme Court · 1868
- Balja v. RawleyNew York Supreme Court · 1868