Gardner v. Gardner

Decided January 15, 1813

New York Supreme Court · decided 1813-01-15

<p>The plea of puts «indeed tiff need not averments la y¿n. dec,ara"</p> <p>) A, deceased, chased ofTís ^git'or dower ^ gave a bond to agreed'tcTíeé equal participation of the benefit of the purchase, <m their paying their proportion of the purchase-money? and the oilier heirs covenanted to pay their proportion of the obligation to the widovz V this was held a mutual covenant between the heirs, and that the word widow was used only to designate the obligation intended»</p>

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1813-01-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently December 1882

6 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Per Curiam.

¶1The plea of non est factum only put the deed' in issue, and it was not requisite for the plaintiffs to prove their averments. The authorities cited (Tidd and Peake) establish this rule. The covenant declared on and produced, was to the plaintiffs and not to the widow. The term widow is Used in it only td designate the obligation, of which they were to pay their proportion. The covenant was a counterpart tq one made by the plaintiffs in favour of the defendants, and was to meet the proposition *49contained in the plaintiffs' covenant. Both covenants were mu. tual between the heirs. The nonsuit must be set aside, and a new trial awarded, with costs to abide the event of the suit.

¶2New trial granted.