George v. Stockton
Supreme Court of Alabama
IN the record of this case, which is brought up, there is neither writ, declaration, or any thing to inform us what was the form of action. We however learn, that it was founded on a promissory note for tho payment of four hundred dollars, on a day certain.
Read the full summary
IN the record of this case, which is brought up, there is neither writ, declaration, or any thing to inform us what was the form of action. We however learn, that it was founded on a promissory note for tho payment of four hundred dollars, on a day certain. The consideration of the note was a purchase of forty acres of land, agreed to be made, by the plaintiffs in error, of the defendant; and to make title to which, the defendant bound himself by bond, in the penal sum of eight hundred dollars; conditioned as follows: “The condition of the above obligation is such, that whereas the above…
1Opinion of the CourtCollier, C. J.
— It has been repeatedly adjudged that the vendee of real estate,who has executed his note for the payment *138of the purchase money on a day certain, and received from the seller a bond conditioned to make title generally, cannot successfully resist an action at law on the note, upon the ground that no title has been made: (Read’s Adm’r. v. Cummings, et al. 3 Greenl. Rep. 82: Bailey v. Clay, &c. 4 Rand. Rep. 346.) This principle rests upon a rule which has been often applied to covenants, viz: When the money is to be paid at an appointed time, and the day of payment is to happen, or may happen…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Dow v. TuttleMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1808
- Bailey v. ClayCourt of Appeals of Virginia · 1826
- Jones v. SommervilleSupreme Court of Alabama · 1835
3Cited by5 opinions
- Eads v. MurphySupreme Court of Alabama · 1875
- Whitehurst v. BoydSupreme Court of Alabama · 1845
- Burkett v. MunfordSupreme Court of Alabama · 1881
- Reid v. DavisSupreme Court of Alabama · 1842
- Maull v. EilandSupreme Court of Alabama · 1887