From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mendel v. Pickrell

Supreme Court, Appellate Term
May 1, 1902
38 Misc. 758 (N.Y. App. Term 1902)

Opinion

May, 1902.

Bushby Bushby, for appellant.

W.M. Coleman, for respondent.


By the terms of the agreement of January 12, 1900, between the plaintiff and the defendant, it was the duty of the plaintiff to tender to the defendant at the time any of the notes mentioned in the said agreement came due so much of "$25,000, of the capital stock of the Realty Personalty Reporting Company as will at the rate of $3 per share equal amount or amounts of aforementioned notes as paid by said party of second part hereto" — the defendant herein. The evidence does not show that such a tender was made. No tender having been made, the plaintiff did not have a cause of action on the notes mentioned in the complaint or either of them at the time he began this action. The plaintiff's failure to make the tender before mentioned was a breach of the contract between plaintiff and defendant, and absolved the defendant from all obligations to perform the contract while plaintiff's default continued. Wharton Co. v. Winch, 140 N.Y. 293. See also Raabe v. Squier, 148 id. 81.

The judgment appealed from is reversed and a new trial is ordered, with costs to the appellant, to abide the event.

Present: FREEDMAN, P.J., TRUAX and GILDERSLEEVE, JJ.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant, to abide event.


Summaries of

Mendel v. Pickrell

Supreme Court, Appellate Term
May 1, 1902
38 Misc. 758 (N.Y. App. Term 1902)
Case details for

Mendel v. Pickrell

Case Details

Full title:CHARLES L. MENDEL, Respondent, v . PERCY A. PICKRELL, Appellant

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Term

Date published: May 1, 1902

Citations

38 Misc. 758 (N.Y. App. Term 1902)

Citing Cases

DE VIVO v. GALLERANI

As the contract called for payment upon delivery, the nonpayment while waived as a concurrent condition to…