TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Gary v. Hull

Gary and Gary against Hull

Gary v. Hull, 11 Johns. 441 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1814)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
New York Supreme Court · State Trial Courts
Decided
October 15, 1814
Citations
11 Johns. 441
Headnotes
Gr. agreed wStii H. to accept payment for a judgment against II. m tanners bark, and H. accordingly deliverer! to G« six loads of bark, but not agri-ineas to the price, Gr„ immediately!^ sued an execution on the judgment a-g/instH., who then Drought an action fo*' much bark v>ld and delivered,• end it was held that hewasen? lied to recover; th-e rig fit of applying the hark Sn paym mtofthe judgment having been waived ny thn act of 0 , and the agrees?zv. rescinded
Summary
IN ERROR, on certiorari, from a justice’s court. Hull brought an action against Joseph and John Gary, before the jus tice, for a quantity of tanner’s bark sold and delivered. Plea, the general issue. The defendants below had sold a wagon to Hull and his brother for 45 dollars, to be paid for in bark. Five dollars only were paid on that contract; and when the time had expired, Hull confessed two judgments before a justice for the balance, being 40 dollars. It was then agreed that Hull might yet make payment in bark, to be applied on the judgments. The plaintiff accordingly delivered six loads of bark to the d = fendants below; but the parties not agreeing as to the price, the defendants issued executions for the whole amount of their judgments, which executions were in the constable’s hands at the commencement of this suit. The justice gave judgment for the plaintiff below, for the value of the bark so delivered.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Per Curiam.

This is a clear case for the plaintiff below. The defendants had waived the benefit of applying the bark on iheir judgment against Hull by issuing their executions tor the whole amount of those judgments.

The agreement, therefore, for making such application, appears to have been rescinded by mutual consent; and there remained no objection to fluids claim for the bark.

The judgment mast be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed»

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1827–1828: 11833–1834: 11841–1842: 11857–1858: 11863–1864: 218272026peak 1863 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Binck v. Wood43 Barb. 315 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1864)
  2. Smith v. Weeks26 Barb. 463 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1857)
  3. Givhan v. Dailey's Admr'x4 Ala. 336 (1842)
  4. Holbrook v. Armstrong10 Me. 31 (1833)
  5. Kneeland v. Fuller51 Me. 518 (1863)
  6. Burlingame v. Burlingame7 Cow. 108 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1827)

Most recent

  1. Binck v. Wood43 Barb. 315 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1864)
  2. Kneeland v. Fuller51 Me. 518 (1863)
  3. Smith v. Weeks26 Barb. 463 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1857)
  4. Givhan v. Dailey's Admr'x4 Ala. 336 (1842)
  5. Holbrook v. Armstrong10 Me. 31 (1833)
  6. Burlingame v. Burlingame7 Cow. 108 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1827)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list