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.
Jane Beebe, Executrix, etc., et al., Respondents, v. Alexander McKenzie et al., Appellants, 1872 — 47 N.Y. 662 · caselaw · US
Contracts · MBE-tested
Jane Beebe, Executrix, etc., et al., Respondents, v. Alexander McKenzie et al., Appellants
47 N.Y. 662·New York Court of Appeals·1872·NY
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
Jane Beebe, Executrix, etc., et al., Respondents, v. Alexander McKenzie et al., Appellants.
(Argued January 24, 1872;
decided January 30, 1872.)
Action to recover $1,000 upon a contract between plaintiffs’ testator and defendants, executed upon the sale to defendants of a patent right.
By the contract, defendants agreed to pay the $1,000 in one year,in case the validity of the patent was not questioned; if questioned within that time, defendants were to bring an action to test its validity, and prosecute the same with reasonable diligence; and in case the patent was thereby sustamed, then to pay the $1,000. The patent was questioned. Defp.nda.nts commenced an action in the United States Court, in which the defendants appeared. This was nine years before the commencement of the present action. Eo thing further was done in that action. Defendants here moved to dismiss complaint, upon ground that the commencement of the suit in the United States Court was a compliance with the contract; also, that no action in which the validity of a patent was involved could be tried in a State court. Motion denied. Held, no error.
Samuel Hamd for appellants.
J. H Reynolds for respondents.
[MAJORITY — Gbovee, J.,]
Gbovee, J.,
reads opinion for affirmance.
All concur.
Judgment affirmed.