Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

7 Johns. 465

M'Nitt v. Clark

New York Supreme Court

Decided February 15, 1811

New York Supreme Court · decided 1811-02-15

THIS was an action of debt on a bond, dated rune 76, 1807, for 1,200 dollars.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1811-02-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 11 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 1928

7 state decisions

40181118201830184018501860187018801890190019101920decided

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,

¶1The defendant showed nothing in his defence, and he is, therefore, to be considered as having failed in every part of the condition of the bond, and to have performed neither alternative. He had his elec*467ti'on to pay the 400 dollars at the end of six months, or account, or to pay the 600 dollars at the end of one year, or account for the profits ; bdt having totally failed, he has lost his election, and the plaintiff may now elect for himself. This is a settled principle. The case of 13 Edw. IV. pl. 12. and which is abridged in Bro. (Dette, pl. 159.) established this rule. That was debt upon an obligation to pay 20/. or 20 bales of wool, and the plaintiff demanded the 20l. or 20 Pigot, J. and Brian, J. held, that before the day of payment the obligor had his election to tender which of them he would, but that, after the day of payment, and no tender made, the obligee had his election to demand which he would. But Brian, J. admitted, that if a man be bound to pay 20l. at Easter, or 10l. at Michaelmas, here, although he paid not at the first day, he can pay at the second day. In Dyer, 18. a. Baldwin, J. and Englefielde, J. recognised the same doctrine; and the cases cited from Cro. Eliz. and Cro. Jac. are to the -same effect.

¶2The sale which the defendant made of his right, un-i der the contract in September, 1807', precluded him from the ability to account, as agent or factor, for the proceeds, and he is now bound to pay the 600 dollars.

¶3The motion, therefore, on the part of the plaintiff, for a new trial, must be granted, with costs to abide the event of the suit.

¶4New trial granted;

/7/johns/465 · .json · Public domain