NUNEZ
v.
DAUTEL
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.
In Nunez v. Dautel, the Supreme Court held that a written instrument promising payment of wages earned over four years and six months, with payment to occur "as soon as the crop could be sold, or the money could be raised from any other source," constituted an enforceable debt despite lacking a fixed payment date. The Court determined that when no specific time is stated for fulfilling payment conditions, the law implies a reasonable time for performance, and after more than five years had elapsed without payment, the plaintiff was entitled to recover the full amount owed.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice SWAYNE, having stated the case, delivered the opinion of the court. The paper was clearly not a promissory note, because it was not payable at a time certain, and it was not such a due-bi 11 as the law regards as in effect a promissory note for the same reason.§ It was made up of the following particulars: It acknowledged the amount specified, .consisting of principal and interest, to be due to the plaintiff for four years and six months’ services, and promised to pay him that sum, with interest, as soon as the crop could be sold, or the money could be raised from any other source. No time having been specified within which the crop should be sold or the money raised otherwise, the law annexed as an incident that one or the other should be done within reasonable time, and that the sum admitted to be due should be paid accordingly. Payment was not conditional to the extent of depending wholly and finally upon the alternatives mentioned. The stipulations secured to the defendants a reasonable amount of time within which to procure in one mode or the other the means necessary to meet the liability. Upon the occurrence of either of the events named or the lapse of such time, the debt became due. It could not have been the intention of the parties that if the crop were destroyed, or from any other cause could never be sold, and the defendants could not procure the money from any other source,,the debt should never be paid. Such a result would be a mockery of justice.* The question of reasonable time, as the case was presented, was one to be determined by the court.† When the suit was instituted more than five years had elapsed from the date of the instrument. This was much more than a reasonable time for the fulfilment of the undertaking of the defendants, and the plaintiff was entitled to recover. The Circuit Court instructed the jury correctly, and the judgment is Affirmed. § Story on Promissory Notes, § 27; Salinas v. Wright, 11 Texas, 575; Ex parte Tootell, 4 Vesey, 372. * Hicks v. Shouse, 17 Ben Monroe, 487; Ubsdell et al. v. Cunningham, 22 Missouri, 124. † Frothingham v. Dutton, 2 Greenleaf, 255; Kingsley v. Wallis, 14 Maine, 57; Manning v. Sawyer, 1 Hawks, 37; Cocker et al. v. Franklin Hemp and Flax Manufacturing Company, 3 Sumner, 530.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (14 total)
-
Ballas v. Lake Weir Light & Water Co., 100 Fla. 913 (Fla. 1930)…ntiff. In 13 C. J. 684, it. is said: “Where a promise constitutes a present liability, and payment is postponed until the happening of an event which does not happen, payment must be made [*929] within a reasonable time,” See also Nunez v. Dautel, 19 Wall. 560, 22 L. Ed. 161; Crooker v. Holmes, 65 Me. 195, 20 A. R. 687, Randall v. Johnson, 59 Miss. 317, 42 A. R. 365. but “A promise may be conditional, that is, the performance may be due, not immediately, but only after the lapse of time or the happening…
-
Whiting v. Gray, 27 Fla. 482 (Fla. 1891)
-
Sharp v. MacHry, 488 So. 2d 133 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)…premise that the plaintiff had failed to perform his contractual obligation to charter a vessel within a reasonable time. In support of its holding, the court summarized an early United States Supreme Court decision as follows: In Nunez v. Dautel, 19 Wall. 560 [22 L.Ed. 161] the contract was to pay money “as soon as the crop can be sold or the money raised from any other source,” and the supreme court of the United States held that, no time having been specified within which the crop should be sold or the…
Previewing 3 of 14 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence