Clow v. Borst

Decided May 15, 1810

New York Supreme Court · decided 1810-05-15

THIS was an action for breach of covenant. The declaration stated, that the defendants, on the 21st May, 1808, at Catskill, by their covenant, promised, jointly and severally, to pay to the plaintiff, or order, 90 days after- date, 198 dollars and 73 cents, with interest. The defendants pleaded, 1. Nonest factum; 2.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1810-05-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently March 1924

7 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.

¶1In the case of Grimes v. Bolfield, (Cro. Eliz. 541.) and which is cited as law, by Baron Comyns, (tit. Accord, A. 2.) it was held not to be a good plea of accord and satisfaction to a bond, that a stranger had surrendered a tenement to a plaintiff, in satisfaction of the debt, which he accepted; because the stranger was not privy to the bond; and a satisfaction given by him was not good. If this case be an authority, and it does not appear ever to have been questioned, the plea in the present case is bad, and judgment must be given for the plaintiff.

¶2Judgment for the plaintiff.