Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

6 N.Y. 44

Coleman v. . Wade

New York Court of Appeals

Decided December 5, 1851

New York Court of Appeals · decided 1851-12-05

This was an action of assumpsit, commenced in the supreme court, by William Coleman against James Wade and David H. Van Amburgh, as sureties for George Wade, on a lease of a mill and the appurtenances, in Orange county, for the term of one year from the 1st November 1843, at the rent of $650, payable quarterly; with a covenant on the part of the lessee to keep the mill in good order and repair.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1851-12-05

How this case has been cited

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently June 1902

4 state decisions

20185118601870188018901900decided

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 →

¶1[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *46 The lease between Coleman and George Wade, provides for the payment of the last quarter's rent on the first of November, 1844.

¶2The defendants, as sureties for George Wade, guarantied the payment of the rent in the manner specified in the lease, and the performance of all other covenants upon the part of their principal.

¶3On the 18th of October, 1844, the lessor and lessee entered into bonds to arbitrate, as to all matters between them, arising out of the demise, and the arbitrators awarded $269,94, in full satisfaction of all rent due to, and including the first day of August, 1844, and all damages up to the 10th October of the same year, to be paid by the lessee, on or before the 10th day ofNovember, 1844. By the terms of the lease, the lessee was bound to pay his rent on the 1st of August, and the damages for breach of his covenants, as they accrued during the continuance, and at the close of the term. These provisions were so far modified by the award, as to be paid in a gross sum, on the 10th of November. This was a change of the contract, in a material matter, competent for the parties to make, but which discharged the sureties of the lessee. The last quarter's rent was paid as proved by the receipt of the lessor, on the first of November, 1844.

¶4The arbitration discharged the sureties from all obligation for the rent, prior to the first of August, even if their undertaking is considered as divisible, and that the award extinguished, as to them, the rent only, which was therein specially provided for.

¶5I think the nonsuit right, and that the judgment should be affirmed. *49

/6/ny/44 · .json · Public domain