Graves v. Porter
New York Supreme Court
In May, 1847, an agreement was made between one Perry and the defendant, by which Perry was to sell a farm then in Porter’s possession to Porter, for $1000, and Porter was to purchase the farm, provided a certain mortgage upon it should be paid.
Read the full summary
In May, 1847, an agreement was made between one Perry and the defendant, by which Perry was to sell a farm then in Porter’s possession to Porter, for $1000, and Porter was to purchase the farm, provided a certain mortgage upon it should be paid. It was also further provided in the agreement, that Porter should hold possession of the farm as tenant, at the yearly rent of $70 from the first day of April previous, until the mortgage should he discharged, and then Perry was to convey. In January, 1850, the defendant, reciting that it was in consideration of $300 to him in hand paid by the…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
Marvin, J.
The consideration clause in the assignment of the lease was open to explanation by parol evidence. (McCrea v. Purmort, 16 Wend. 460. Adams v. Hill, 2 Denio, 306. Cowen & Hill’s Notes, 1441.) But do the questions raised in the case turn upon the rule in relation to explaining or contradicting.the consideration clause? Would not the evidence offered have contradicted the contract between the parties ? The obligations which the law, under the contract, imposed upon the parties, constitute a part of the contract. Whatever is to be legally implied from a contract, is a part…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- M'Crea v. PurmortCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1836
- Adams v. HullNew York Supreme Court · 1845
3Cited by8 opinions
- Journeay v. BrackleyNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1857
- Trask v. GrahamSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1891
- Main v. FeathersNew York Supreme Court · 1856
- Lynch v. RinaldoNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1876
- Holsman v. De GrayThe Superior Court of New York City · 1858
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.