TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Norris v. Lain

Norris against Lain

Norris v. Lain, 16 Johns. 151 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1819)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
New York Supreme Court · State Trial Courts
Decided
May 15, 1819
Citations
16 Johns. 151
Cited by 5
Headnotes
vvnere apa° rol agreement is made for the sale and purchase of land, (which is void by the statute of frauds,) and the vendor is ready at the time appointed with a deed executed and acknowledged., but the purchaser refuses to complete tho agreement, an. action will not lie to recover the expense of the conveyance : though if the purchaser had been requested to deecT'm the promketopay ^¿“seXo J^ebargaifthe action would be supported, as there would agreement dis-one made void by 016 statute°
Summary
■IN ERROR, on certiorari to a Justice’s Court. The defendant in error brought an action in the Court below, against the plaintiff in error, and the following facts appeared on the trial. The parties had made a verbal agreement, by which the plaintiff below was to sell, and the defendant to purchase, a piece of land, for 1800 dollars. At the time appointed by the agreement, the plaintiff was ready with a deed, executed and acknowledged on his part, but the defendant refused to complete the bargain. The plaintiff then brought this action, for the expenses of preparing and acknowledging the deed, and for attending to perfect the agreement; and the justice rendered judgment in his favour for five dollars.

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.

Here was a parol •■agreement for the sale of land, which is void by the statute of frauds; and being one single and entire contract, it was void in all its parts, and for every purpose. The preparation of the deed was a mere incident to the contract, and fell with it. If the purchaser had verbally agreed wjth the seller, to this effect: “ bring the deed, and if I then choose to refuse it, and vacate the agreement, I will pay for It,” the seller might maintain an action for the price of the deed. There would then, in fact, be two agreements; one for the sale of the land, which is not binding, and the other a valid agreement in regard to the deed. It is very clear, that the signing and aclcnow *152 ledging of the deed was not a part performance of the con tract, so,as to take the case out of the statute. (1 Com. Cont. 115, 116.) on

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 5 cases

View all citing references →
1871–1872: 11879–1880: 11881–1882: 11893–1894: 11921–1922: 118712026peak 1871 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Wells v. Mann45 N.Y. 327 (1871)
  2. Woodworth v. Franklin1921 OK 333, 204 P. 452
  3. Newcomb v. Hale90 N.Y. 326 (1882)
  4. Bingham v. Mears27 L.R.A. 257 (N.D. 1894)
  5. Deck v. Works57 How. Pr. 292 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1879)

Most recent

  1. Woodworth v. Franklin1921 OK 333, 204 P. 452
  2. Bingham v. Mears27 L.R.A. 257 (N.D. 1894)
  3. Newcomb v. Hale90 N.Y. 326 (1882)
  4. Deck v. Works57 How. Pr. 292 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1879)
  5. Wells v. Mann45 N.Y. 327 (1871)

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