vendor bar in New York

1913Hutchings v. Munger, 41 N. Y. 155, 158 ; O’Rourke v. Hadcock, 114 id. 541, 550; Cunningham v. Hedge, 12 App. Div. 212, 215 ; French v. Roe, 77 Hun, 380 , 384-386.

1913Hutchings v. Munger, 41 N. Y. 155, 158 ; O’Rourke v. Hadcock, 114 id. 541, 550; Cunningham v. Hedge, 12 App. Div. 212, 215 ; French v. Roe, 77 Hun, 380 , 384-386.

1909Co., 76 N. Y. 609, 611 , is not an authority applicable to this case.” In that case the court further stated that: “Where a vendor, having no knowledge of the fraudulent representations by which he was induced to make a sale of goods to the vendee, sues for the price of the goods and recovers an uncollectible judgment, that action cannot be deemed an election of remedies by the vendor which will bar a subsequent action by him to recover damages for the fraud.

1889(Harrington v. Higgins, 17 Wend. 376 .) These and all kindred cases will be found, I think, to have arisen on independent covenants in contracts, and the rule established by them has no application in an action by a vendor for purchase-money brought subsequent to the day stipulated for the delivery of the deed.

1849They were cases where the purchaser acquired some estate or interest in the premises conveyed, under his deed or under his contract for a deed, or some benefit by virtue of the deed or contract, and where he had not been evicted; and where, also, he had a remedy against the vendor on the covenants in the deed or contract or for a total or a partial failure of title. ( 17 Wend. 188, 376 . 9 John. 126 . 21 Wend. 131 . 20 John. 19 .) A partial failure of consideration can not be pleaded as a full defence; it can only be given in evidence in reduction of the amount to be recovered, or in mitigatio

1849They were cases where the purchaser acquired some estate or interest in the premises conveyed, under his deed or under his contract for a deed, or some benefit by virtue of the deed or contract, and where he had not been evicted; and where, also, he had a remedy against the vendor on the covenants in the deed or contract or for a total or a partial failure of title. ( 17 Wend. 188, 376 . 9 John. 126 . 21 Wend. 131 . 20 John. 19 .) A partial failure of consideration can not be pleaded as a full defence; it can only be given in evidence in reduction of the amount to be recovered, or in mitigatio

1849They were cases where the purchaser acquired some estate or interest in the premises conveyed, under his deed or under his contract for a deed, or some benefit by virtue of the deed or contract, and where he had not been evicted; and where, also, he had a remedy against the vendor on the covenants in the deed or contract or for a total or a partial failure of title. ( 17 Wend. 188, 376 . 9 John. 126 . 21 Wend. 131 . 20 John. 19 .) A partial failure of consideration can not be pleaded as a full defence; it can only be given in evidence in reduction of the amount to be recovered, or in mitigatio

1849Frisbee v. Hoffnagle, 11 John. 50 .) The cases cited on the argument, by the counsel of the plaintiffs, to show that a want of title in the vendor is no bar to his recovery in an action for the purchase money, were cases where there was not a total failure of the consideration.