Conover v. Stillwell
Supreme Court of New Jersey
On case certified from Monmouth Circuit Court. The defendant, Stillwell, on the 15th of February, 1860, entered into an agreement with the plaintiff, Conover, and one John S. Conover, to sell and convey to them certain real estate in the-county of Monmouth, a portion of the consideration of which was to be paid in cash, and the residue to be secured by a mortgage on the' premises.
Read the full summary
On case certified from Monmouth Circuit Court. The defendant, Stillwell, on the 15th of February, 1860, entered into an agreement with the plaintiff, Conover, and one John S. Conover, to sell and convey to them certain real estate in the-county of Monmouth, a portion of the consideration of which was to be paid in cash, and the residue to be secured by a mortgage on the' premises. Subsequently, a conveyance was made by the defendant and his wife to the Conovers, by deed containing full covenants of warranty. Part of the consideration money was paid in cash; and the residue ($800) was secured…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Depue, J.
The validity of the contract sued on is denied for the want of a consideration to support it. The money mentioned being payable on a contingency, the instrument is not a promissory note., As a consequence, a consideration will not be .implied from the form of the instrument, and the plaintiff, to establish his right to recover, must aver and prove the consideration on which the contract was founded.
Even in the case of a promissory note, the words “ value received” only import a consideration so as to relieve the party from proving it in the…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Stewart v. AhrenfeldtNew York Supreme Court · 1847
- Farmers' Bank of Amsterdam v. BlairNew York Supreme Court · 1865
- Reynolds v. WardNew York Supreme Court · 1830
- Gibson v. RenneNew York Supreme Court · 1838
3Cited by1 opinion
- Long v. BD. OF CHOSEN FREEHOLDERS, CTY. OF HUDSONNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1951