YOUNG
v.
GRUNDY
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Young held a note against Grundy and claimed equitable relief based on alleged non-performance of an 1795 agreement with another party. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision, holding that Young's equitable claims were extinguished by an 1798 contract that expressly replaced the 1795 agreement as compensation for losses, and that Grundy, as a holder of the note, could not be affected by Young's subsequent disputes with other defendants.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Livingston, J.
delivered the opinion of the Court as follows:
Whatever equity the Complainant may once have had against the payee or holder of the note for 1438 15 which was assigned to George Grundy, in consequence of the non-performance of the agreement of the 15th of May, 1795, this Courtis of opinion that all such equity was done away by the contract of the 6th September, 1798. This last contract was made for the express purpose of making the Complainants a compensation for the loss they had sustained, by the non-performance of the other, and was evidently received as an equivalent ór substitute therefor. By this latter contract then they were placed, as it respected the holders of all their notes, precisely in the same situation as if there bad been no want or failure of consideration of the agreement made in 1795. Whether the agreement of 1798 has been complied with it is not material to inquire, because, previous thereto, this note was held by Grundy, who cannot be affected by any claim which the Complainant may have against the other Defendants in con - sequence of any subsequent transactions between the parties.
The Court is of opinion that the decree of the Circuit Court be affirmed with costs.