Henry L. Crane Boot & Shoe Co. v. Trentman
U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Indiana
At Law. On motion for return to defendant of money brought into court to keep good a tender. ■ The facts are not in dispute. The plaintiff, a corporation engaged in the wholesale shoe trade at Cincinnati, had sold goods to the value of $2,540.50 to Miller, a retail dealer at Fort Wayne.
Read the full summary
At Law. On motion for return to defendant of money brought into court to keep good a tender. ■ The facts are not in dispute. The plaintiff, a corporation engaged in the wholesale shoe trade at Cincinnati, had sold goods to the value of $2,540.50 to Miller, a retail dealer at Fort Wayne. Miller, when he made his purchases of the plaintiff, was insolvent, — the principal part of his indebtedness being to Trentman, — and obtained credit upon his purchases of the plaintiff by means of representations in respect to his solvency which entitled the plaintiff, on learning the facts, to reclaim the…
1Opinion of the Court
Woods, J.,
(after stating the fads as above.) The general rule is well established that one who would disaffirm a contract must do so totally, and therefore must return whatever lie had received upon it. But at the .same time he is entitled to reclaim whatever he had parted with, and consequently his tender or offer to return need not be absolute, but upon condition, either express or implied, that he shall receive back his own, *622not in part only, but entirely; and if this cannot be done, or is refused, he may withhold the tender, and bring it into court for final disposition, as justice may…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Pearse v. PettisNew York Supreme Court · 1866
- Town of Springport v. Teutonia Savings BankNew York Court of Appeals · 1881
3Cited by3 opinions
- Green v. TurnerCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1898
- John V. Farwell Co. v. HiltonU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Eastern Wisconsin · 1897
- Pierce County Auto Co. v. MenardWashington Supreme Court · 1916