TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Boyle v. Guysinger

Boyle v. Guysinger, 12 Ind. 273 (1859)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Indiana Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
May 28, 1859
Judges
Cwriam, Perkins
Citations
12 Ind. 273
Headnotes
Where the plaintiff’s covenant or stipulation constitutes only a part of the consideration of the defendant’s contract, and the defendant has actually received a partial benefit, and the breach on the part of the plaintiff might be compensated in damages, an action may be supported against the defendant, without averring performance by the plaintiff. Where a party, before the time fixed for the performance of an agreement, disables himself to perform it on his part, no demand of performance is ne-i cessary.
Summary
APPEAL from the Henry Court of Common Pleas.

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

Opinion of the Court — Perkins

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

Perkins, J.

Suit upon the following contract:

“ Sold to John S. Guysinger, two hundred head of well corn-fatted hogs, all spayed, and altered, weighing two hundred pounds, net, delivered between the 10th of November, 1855, and the 1st of December, 1855, at the option of Guysinger, delivered and weighed on the farm of J. S. Guysinger, in Henry township, Henry county; for which Guysinger agrees to pay to Patrick J. F. Boyle, 4 dollars per hundred pounds, net, in bankable funds; 200 dollars to be paid by the first of August, 1855, without interest; this article to be binding on our executors and administrators» December 23,1854. [Signed] P. J. F. Boyle, John S. Guysinger.”

On the 28th of April, 1855, Guysinger paid Boyle 150 dollars of the 200 dollars due the 1st of August following; and on the 2d of August, 1855, tendered the remaining 50 dollars. Boyle refused to receive it, because tendered a *274 day too late, but did not return, or offer to return, the 150 dollars he had received.

O. P. Morton and E. B. Martindale, for the appellant. J. H. Mellett and W. Grose, for the appellee.

In November, 1855, Guysinger demanded the hogs and offered to pay the stipulated price for them. Boyle refused to deliver them—said he never would deliver them—that the hogs were already in Cincinnati, Ohio.

The plaintiff recovered.

The simple statement of two well established principles will be all that need be said in this case.

1. Where the plaintiff’s covenant or stipulation constitutes only a part of the consideration of the defendant’s contract, and the defendant has actually received a partial benefit, and the breach on the part of the plaintiff might be compensated in damages, an action may be supported against the defendant without averring performance by the plaintiff. 1 Chit. Pl. 323.—Ind. Dig. 297.—Chit, on Cont. 737.—Pickens v. Bozell, 11 Ind. R. 275.

2. Where a party, before the time fixed for the performance of an agreement, disables himself to perform it on his part, no demand of performance is necessary. Ind. Dig. 787.—Chit. on Cont. 738.

Per Cwriam.

The judgment is affirmed with 7 per cent, damages and costs.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 13 cases

View all citing references →
1861–1862: 21871–1872: 11873–1874: 11877–1878: 21889–1890: 11897–1898: 11901–1902: 11903–1904: 11905–1906: 11909–1910: 11921–1922: 118612026peak 1861 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Adams v. Cosby48 Ind. 153 (1874)
  2. Clark v. West137 A.D. 23 (1910)
  3. Proctor v. Cole66 Ind. 576 (1878)
  4. Morton v. Kane18 Ind. 191 (1862)
  5. Everroad v. Schwartzkopf23 N.E. 969 (Ind. 1890)
  6. Hickman v. Rayl55 Ind. 551 (1877)

Most recent

  1. Collins v. State131 N.E. 390 (Ind. 1921)
  2. Clark v. West137 A.D. 23 (1910)
  3. Barker & Stewart Lumber Co. v. Edward Hines Lumber Co.137 F. 300 (1905)
  4. Anaconda Copper Mining Co. v. Houston107 Ill. App. 183 (1903)
  5. Johnson v. Heaton61 N.E. 959 (Ind. Ct. App. 1901)
  6. Romel v. Alexander46 N.E. 595 (Ind. Ct. App. 1897)

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