LAW.coLAW.co

William Halladay, Respondent, v. H. I. Nicholas et al., Appellants

New York Court of Common Pleas1895
14 Misc. 640

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion

majority opinion

Per Curiam.

The question, of the right of the plaintiff -to recover depended upon .-the construction of an agreement, the terms of-which were not disputed. The defendants agreed to hold a deposit of checks or money, made by a third party- until July 15, 1893, and on that day to pay over, .but the payment was conditional upon a certain consolidation and issue of bonds specified in.another papei*. Such consolidation and issue did not take place until the month of August thereafter, and* meanwhile, the depositor countermanded; payment to the plaintiff.-- We held the plaintiff not entitledto recover. The - question of time being of the essence of the contract cannot arise in this case as between the depositaries and.the plaintiff.- , As.between them, .the plaintiff, if entitled to the money at all, was entitled to it .on July fifteentlq that being the agreement, but as the condition was not fulfilled he- was not so entitled,1 " and cannot recovei;, there being no other enforcible agreement of the defendants!

. Motion denied, with ten dollars costs.

- Present: Daly, Ch. J.,-Bisohoft- and Pbyob, JJ. . ,

Motion denied, with ten dollars costs. ;