Case Name: Beecher against Conradt
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1855-09
Citations: 13 N.Y. 108
Docket Number: 
Parties: Beecher against Conradt.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 13
Pages: 108–114

Head Matter:
Beecher against Conradt.
Whore, by a contract under seal, the plaintiff agreed to convey land to the defendant, on condition that he should pay the purchase price as therein specified, and the defendant covenanted to pay the same in five equal annual installments; and the defendant having omitted to pay any of the installments, the plaintiff, after they were all due, brought an action on the contract for the whole of the purchase money; Held, that he was not entitled to recover any part of it, without proving an offer before suit brought to convey tlia land to the defendant on receiving the purchase price.
When the last installment came due, the payment of the whole of the unpaid purchase money and the conveyance of the land became dependent acts.
Action commenced in the supreme court, in 1851, to recover the amount agreed to be paid by the defendant in and by the contract hereinafter mentioned. The complaint alleged the making of the contract; that it had been duly transferred to the plaintiff; that the party of the first part to the contract and the plaintiff, had always fulfilled and kept all things therein contained on their part to be performed ; that the defendant had neglected to pay the amount agreed to be paid by him; and that the whole amount of the principal and interest, named in the contract, was due and unpaid, and judgment for this amount was demanded. The answer put all the allegations of the complaint in issue. The cause was tried at the Oneida county circuit, held by Mr. Justice Gridley. The plaintiff read in evidence the' contract mentioned in the complaint. It was dated the third day of January, 1839, and executed by Abraham Va-rick, as surviving executor of the will of one Walker, deceased, as party of the first part, and by the defendant as party of the second part. By the terms of this contract the party of the first part, in consideration of one cent to him paid, and upon the express condition that the party of the second part shall, and do well and faithfully perform the covenants hereinafter mentioned, and to be performed on his part,” covenanted for himself and his assigns to execute and deliver to the party of the second part a deed of conveyance in fee, containing covenants of warranty against the acts of the grantor, of and for a parcel of land which was described in the contract.; and the defendant, the party of the second part, covenanted to pay to the party of the first part or his assigns “ the sum of three hundred and ninety-six dollars in'five equal annual payments, with interest annually on all sums unpaid.” The plaintiff further proved that the land mentioned in the contract was conveyed, and the contract assigned to him in December, 1850, and rested. Thereupon the counsel for the defendant moved the court to nonsuit the plaintiff, on the ground, among others, that inasmuch as the action was brought to recover the whole amount of the purchase money, after the same had become due by the contract, the plaintiff could not recover without proving that he tendered a con veyance' of the land, or offered to convey the same to the defendant before the commencement of the action. The court overruled the objection, refused to nonsuit the plaintiff, and decided that he was entitled to recover the amount of the purchase money mentioned in the contract. The counsel for the defendant excepted. The judg ment, rendered at the circuit, was affirmed by the supreme court at a general term, held in the 5th' district. The defendant appealed to this court.
Samuel Beardsley, for the appellant.
Charles A. Mann, for the respondent.
And see James v. Burchell, 82 N. Y. 108 ; s. c. 7 Daly 531.

Opinion:
Gardiner, C. J.
The plaintiff has neither averred nor was there proof of any other breach of the contract upon the part of the defendant, except the non-payment of the purchase-money. The plaintiff had a right to sue for each instalment, as they severally became payable; but this right he has waived, and now seeks to recover the whole purchase money in this action, without an averment or proof of a tender of a conveyance, or a readiness or willingness to convey. It is not denied by the court below, that if the several payments had been made as they fell due, and the suit had been commenced for the last installment alone, that the plaintiff must have made such an averment and sustained it by proof, if questioned; the point is too plain to admit of discussion. It is, however, said that a right of action accrued as the installments became payable, which the nonperformance of the plaintiff would not discharge. This doctrine assumes a right, upon the part of the plaintiff, to divide his cause of action into as many suits as there were installments. The first answer to this suggestion is, that the consideration for the conveyance by the vendor was an entire- sum, to be paid by installments ; that the whole was due at the commencement of the action, and the plaintiff has sued for the whole purchase money without attempting to distinguish, in his complaint' or evidence, between the different installments. The second answer is, that the plaintiff having elected to wait until the fifth and last installment became due, and upon the payment of which, as this case stands, the defendant would be entitled to a deed, cannot now sustain his action for either installments, without proof of performance or readiness to perform on his part. The covenants, as to the four first installments, were originally independent; but the plaintiff, by his omission to insist upon a strict performance by the defendant, has lost the right to bring more than one suit for the money, which formed the consideration for his conveyance. The defendant, by a tender of the whole, which he 'has now a right to pay, would be entitled to his deed. The plaintiff, on the other hand, must establish his right to the consideration as an entirety, or he cannot recover anything. If he recovered in this action but $50, the judgment would be a complete bar to any further claim for the purchase money, and when that judgment was paid the defendant would be entitled to his deed.
The defendant could not protect himself against an action by an offer to pay the first, or all of the four first installments; as the consideration was entire, and all due, (he plaintiff could insist upon the whole. And yet, if because the covenants were originally independent they must always continue so, the defendant must have the right to discharge by payments what the plaintiff could enforce by action.
The truth is, the parties, by lapse of time, are in the same situation as though the purchase money was all payable at one time. The defendant has lost his right to pay the installments separately, and the plaintiff his right to enforce collection by separate suits. There is but a single cause of action, one and indivisible. The defendant, if he would obtain his deed, must pay all; and the plaintiff, if he would recover, must show such a performance on his part as would entitle him to all the unpaid consideration. The condition attaches to the whole debt and every part of it. The judgment of the supreme court should be reversed, and a new trial ordered.
Denio, Johnson, Marvin and Dean, JJ., concurred.