Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Melatiah H. Lawrence, Respondent, v. Stephen W. Van Deventer, Appellant, 1873 — 51 N.Y. 676 · caselaw · US
Contracts · MBE-tested
Melatiah H. Lawrence, Respondent, v. Stephen W. Van Deventer, Appellant
51 N.Y. 676·New York Commission of Appeals·1873·NY
All concur.
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
Melatiah H. Lawrence, Respondent, v. Stephen W. Van Deventer, Appellant.
(Argued January 15,1873;
decided March term, 1873.)
This action was brought to recover back moneys paid to defendant upon two contracts, plaintiff claiming to rescind upon the ground of defendant’s non-performance.
Defendant had a lease of certain lands in Yenango county, Pennsylvania, for the purpose of boring for oil, by which he was bound to commence on the 10th January, 1865, and bore, or cause to be bored, a well of sufficient depth to obtain oil. On the 30th December, 1864, defendant made a contract with' one Armstrong, by which, in consideration of $500 paid, he agreed to sell Armstrong one thirty-second part of all the oil produced, and agreed to put down one well 650 feet deep, unless he struck oil in paying quantities at a less depth. He also entered into a similar contract with plaintiff, upon which the latter paid $250. By this contract defendant was to put down one well to a sufficient depth to obtain oil, if any could be found. Defendant made efforts to find oil, and failed. He never, however, dug a well to the depth of 650 feet. Armstrong and plaintiff tendered to defendant all the interests conveyed to them, and demanded the money paid. Armstrong assigned his claim to plaintiff. The court below found that defendant had not fulfilled his contracts, “ but failed in every part thereof.” Meld, that the finding was justified, and that plaintiff was entitled to recover -the amount paid upon the contract.
David B. Prosser for the appellant.
Morris Brown for the respondent.
[MAJORITY — Reynolds, C.,]
Reynolds, C.,
reads for affirmance.
All concur.
Judgment affirmed.