Case ID: johns_6/html/0194-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Doolin against Ward.
    ALBANY,
    August, 1810.
    Certain artioles being advertised for sale which a a. Srous toerCpuragreed between them that they ponía not bid against each other, but that A. should buy the articles* and afterwards divide the same equally with B. A. made the purchase hut refused to deliver B. the one hrif of the goods. In an action brought l>y B. against A. to recover one half of the profits of the purchase, it was held, that the agreement was without consideration and void; and •against public policy.
    IN error, on certiorari, from the iustice’s court, in ^ ' NeW-'Tork.
    
    The return stated, that Ward sued Doolin, by warrant, and declared against him, for a breach of contract, to his damage 50 dollars. Doolin pleaded the general issue with notice of a set-off. Upon the trial Ward pro- ’ r f yed, that on the 10th day of July, 1809, certain articles . J v being about to be sold, at the navy-yard, at Brooklyn, by auction; and both defendant and plaintiff being anxr ° ions to purchase, it was agreed between them, that Ward would not bid against Doolin, and that Doolin should buy in the articles, and that they should afterwards divide the same equally. That Doolin accordingly purchased a quantity, for 225 dollars ; and the plaintiff disposed of one half of his right in the purchase to a third person. The articles were worth, at the time, 400 dollars, and Doolin afterwards refused to deliver one half of the articles to Ward, who tendered to a clerk of the plaintiff’s, in his store, a fourth of the purchase-money» In the suit he demanded half of the profits of the purchase, amounting to 58 dollars and 50 cents ; but in fact claimed only 50 dollars. Doolin proved Ward indebted to him 23 dollars and 64 cents; and judgment was given for the plaintiff for 50 dollars.
   Per Curiam.

The contract declared on was without consideration and void. It was also against public policy, and tended injuriously to affect the character and the value of sales at auction. The judgment below must be reversed.

Van Ness, J. said he concurred in the opinion of the court on the single point, that this was a nudum pactum.

Judgment reversed.