¶1was of opinion, that if it was understood by the parties that the money was to be paid and the horse delivered to the plaintiff at the defendant’s house, it was incumbent on the plaintiff to prove a tender within the time, or that he attended at the defendant’s house on the last day ready to pay. and that the defendant was not there. If no place was understood between the parties, the plaintiff should have used reasonable diligence and endeavors to find the defendant and tender him the money, on or before the last day.
2 F. Cas. 1079
Bayley v. Duvall
U.S. District Court
Decided December 15, 1805
U.S. District Court · decided 1805-12-15
[At law. Action for] money had and received, to recover one hundred and eighty dollars paid in advance for the purchase of the horse Yorick. The plaintiff paid the defendant one hundred and eight}' dollars, in advance, for the horse, which was to be delivered to the plaintiff at a future day, on payment of the balance, and if the balance should not be paid on or before that future day, the advance-money should be forfeited.
Decided 1805-12-15