Brown v. Allen

26 N.Y.S. 299 (1893) · New York Supreme Court · December 8, 1893

Summary

The court considered whether the grantees’ eviction from property constituted a total failure of consideration for a bond given in connection with the purchase. Because the grantees had removed and benefited from most of the valuable timber before the title failed, the court held that the eviction was partial and that damages should be proportionate to the value of the property actually lost. The judgment was reversed and a new trial granted.

Court
New York Supreme Court
Writing for the Court
Martin, J.
Jurisdiction
New York
Decision date
December 8, 1893
Procedural posture
Plaintiff appealed from a judgment for defendants in an action on a bond securing part of the purchase price of land. The court had previously considered issues concerning eviction and the admissibility of forest commission evidence; on this appeal, the court addressed whether the consideration for the bond had totally failed.
Standard of review
Whether the evidence supported the trial court's finding of total eviction and total failure of consideration, and whether the resulting measure of damages was legally proper.
Precedential value
Published state appellate opinion
Parties
Brown v. Allen and Northam's representatives
Disposition
reversed_and_remanded

Topics

real estatedamagesbreach of contractcontractsremedies

Practice areas

real estate lawproperty damagesreal estate contracts

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the purchasers' loss of title after removing most of the property's valuable timber constituted a total or only partial eviction.
  2. Whether the defendants were entitled to treat the consideration for the purchase-money bond as having totally failed.
  3. What measure of damages applied to the breach of the deed covenant when the purchasers had already received and benefited from the timber.

Holdings

  1. The eviction was partial, not total, because the purchasers had already enjoyed and removed the most valuable part of the real estate before the title failed.
  2. The consideration for the bond did not totally fail merely because title to the premises was subsequently lost; the defendants were entitled only to an allowance commensurate with the property they lost, subject to any additional allowance for timber removed after title failed.

Key quotations

the measure of damages is such part of the original price as bears the same ratio to the whole consideration that the value of the land to which the title has failed bears to the value of the whole (301)
The most valuable part of the real estate purchased had been enjoyed by the purchasers, and they have reaped the benefit of its removal and sale. (302)

Factual background

Brown conveyed 357.14 acres of timbered land to Allen and Northam for $3,171.40, part of which was secured by a bond and mortgage. While in possession and before the alleged loss of title through tax-sale deeds, Allen and Northam removed most of the timber, which constituted the principal value of the property. The trial court nevertheless found a total eviction and total failure of consideration, effectively allowing the defendants to avoid the entire bond obligation.

Procedural history

Brown conveyed approximately 357.14 acres to Allen and Northam, who gave a bond and mortgage securing part of the purchase price. After tax-sale deeds allegedly divested the purchasers of title, the trial court found a total eviction and total failure of consideration and denied recovery on the bond. The New York Supreme Court reversed and granted a new trial because the purchasers had removed and benefited from most of the property's valuable timber before the title failure.

Remand instructions

Conduct a new trial to determine what amount of timber, if any, was removed after the title to the premises changed, and calculate the defendants' allowable damages based on the proportionate value of the land without the timber, with any appropriate additional allowance for post-title-failure timber removal.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…

More from New York New York Supreme Court