Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

58 N.Y. 611

Blewett v. . Baker

New York Court of Appeals

Decided November 10, 1874

New York Court of Appeals · decided 1874-11-10

(Reported below, 5 Jones & Spencer, 23.) , This action was brought to recover damages for an alleged breach of contract. Plaintiff alleged, and his evidence tended to show, that in April, 1872, he entered into a contract with defendant by which he agreed to lease certain premises in Hew York suitable for the manufacture of what was styled “ patent bolster spring beds; ” was to find security for the payment of the rent and to assign the lease to defendant.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1874-11-10

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently March 1918

4 state decisions

2018741880189019001910decided

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 →

Allen, J.

¶1 Hpon conflicting evidence the jury have found for the plaintiff, and the verdict cannot be .disturbed by this court. The verdict establishes the. making of the contract as alleged by the plaintiff, and that, within a reasonable time after the modification of the agreement, the plaintiff procured a lease of the premises required for the performance of the work contracted for and offered to assign the same to the defendant, in pursuance and performance • of the agreement, who refused to accept the same, and repudiated the contract, *613 upon the sole ground (which was negatived by the verdict) that the offer of performance by the plaintiff was not seasonable in point of time. This absolute refusal to accept an assignment of the lease excused a formal tender and offer by the plaintiff of an assignment actually executed by him, with the written assent of the landlord to such assignment. (Crary v. Smith, 2 Comst., 65; Cornwell v. Haight, 21 N. Y., 462.)

¶2 The motion for a nonsuit was properly denied. The questions of fact were fairly and properly7 submitted to the jury. The case turned solely upon questions of fact, and every question of law sought to be presented was obviated by the verdict of the jury7, fully sustained by the evidence. It was not a case for an appeal to this court.

¶3 The judgment must be affirmed.

¶4 All concur.

¶5 Judgment affirmed.

/58/ny/611 · .json · Public domain