Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

12 Ind. 273

Boyle v. Guysinger

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided May 28, 1859

Indiana Supreme Court · decided 1859-05-28

<p>Where the plaintiff’s covenant or stipulation constitutes only a part of the consideration of the defendant’s contract, and the defendant has actually received a partial benefit, and the breach on the part of the plaintiff might be compensated in damages, an action may be supported against the defendant, without averring performance by the plaintiff.</p> <p>Where a party, before the time fixed for the performance of an agreement, disables himself to perform it on his part, no demand of performance is ne-i cessary.</p>

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1859-05-28

How this case has been cited

Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently June 1921

12 state decisions

4018591860187018801890190019101920decided

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 →

Perkins, J.

¶1Suit upon the following contract:

Sold to John S. Guysinger, two hundred head of well corn-fatted hogs, all spayed, and altered, weighing two hundred pounds, net, delivered between the 10th of November, 1855, and the 1st of December, 1855, at the option of Guysinger, delivered and weighed on the farm of J. S. Guysinger, in Henry township, Henry county; for which Guysinger agrees to pay to Patrick J. F. Boyle, 4 dollars per hundred pounds, net, in bankable funds; 200 dollars to be paid by the first of August, 1855, without interest; this article to be binding on our executors and administrators» December 23,1854. [Signed] P. J. F. Boyle,
John S. Guysinger.”

¶2On the 28th of April, 1855, Guysinger paid Boyle 150 dollars of the 200 dollars due the 1st of August following; and on the 2d of August, 1855, tendered the remaining 50 dollars. Boyle refused to receive it, because tendered a *274day too late, but did not return, or offer to return, the 150 dollars he had received.

O. P. Morton and E. B. Martindale, for the appellant.J. H. Mellett and W. Grose, for the appellee.

¶3In November, 1855, Guysinger demanded the hogs and offered to pay the stipulated price for them. Boyle refused to deliver them—said he never would deliver them—that the hogs were already in Cincinnati, Ohio.

¶4The plaintiff recovered.

¶5The simple statement of two well established principles will be all that need be said in this case.

¶61. Where the plaintiff’s covenant or stipulation constitutes only a part of the consideration of the defendant’s contract, and the defendant has actually received a partial benefit, and the breach on the part of the plaintiff might be compensated in damages, an action may be supported against the defendant without averring performance by the plaintiff. 1 Chit. Pl. 323.—Ind. Dig. 297.—Chit, on Cont. 737.—Pickens v. Bozell, 11 Ind. R. 275.

¶72. Where a party, before the time fixed for the performance of an agreement, disables himself to perform it on his part, no demand of performance is necessary. Ind. Dig. 787.—Chit. on Cont. 738.

Per Cwriam.

¶8The judgment is affirmed with 7 per cent, damages and costs.

/12/ind/273 · .json · Public domain