6 Misc. 84, Riordan v. First Presbyterian Church of Tremont

Citation:6 Misc. 84, 26 N.Y.S. 38
Party Name:RIORDAN v. FIRST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, etc.
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 84

6 Misc. 84

26 N.Y.S. 38

RIORDAN

v.

FIRST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, etc.

New York Common Pleas, General Term.

December, 1893

Page 85

Appeal from judgment of the General Term of the City Court affirming judgment on verdict.

For services rendered to Ann Wilson in her illness, the plaintiff sues upon the subjoined covenant in an agreement between said Wilson and defendant, of which the consideration expressed is the conveyance by Wilson to defendant of a parcel of land in the city of New York. "Fourth. The said, the First Presbyterian Church of Tremont, New York city, will pay and discharge any and all charges and expenses for medical attendance and advice, or other necessary attendance in case of illness, and the funeral charges and expenses of the said Ann Wilson, which shall include the purchase of a grave in Woodlawn Cemetery and the erection of a monumental headstone.

"The session of the said church shall have the full and entire charge of the said funeral."

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

SYLLABUS

A promise by one person for the benefit of another will sustain an action by that other, and this although the debt which the one promised to pay be not then in existence, and although at the time of the promise the beneficiary be not identified, and although the person claiming the benefit of the promise did not know of it when his claim against the promisee accrued.

The rule is applicable as well to a specialty as to a simple contract.

Origin in this state of the doctrine of Lawrence v. Fox.

COUNSEL

Ernest Hall, for defendant (appellant).

Edgar J. Nathan, for plaintiff (respondent).

PRYOR, J.

For a valid consideration the defendant covenanted with Ann Wilson to 'pay and discharge any and all charges and expenses for necessary attendance in case of illness.' Upon allegation and proof of necessary service rendered to Ann Wilson in her illness, the plaintiff has recovered a judgment against the defendant; and the question is, whether the defendant's covenant with Ann Wilson so inured to the benefit of the plaintiff as to support an action by her against the defendant.

Lawrence v. Fox, 20 N.Y. 268, decided in 1859, is commonly cited to the proposition that a promise by one for the benefit of another will sustain an action by that other; but, so long before as 1806 the point was expressly...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP