Case Name: WATSON v. DUN
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1834-11
Citations: 1 Wright 741
Docket Number: 
Parties: *WATSON v. DUN.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases at law and in chancery, decided by the Supreme court of Ohio, during the years 1831, 1832, 1833, 1834.
Volume: 1
Pages: 768–768

Head Matter:
*WATSON v. DUN.
Assignment of part of a contract — -substitution—excuse from tender.
Where one has an obligation for land and transfers a portion of it to a third person, whom the obligor recognizes and promises to convey to, the assignee may sue for the breach of the promise, treating the original contract with his assignor as inducement to the promise to him.
If one bound to pay refuse to do so, that excuses a demand and tender of performance by the person entitled to receive.
Dun gave to McKay an obligation to convey to him $1,500 worth •of land to be selected by McKay. McKay transferred $600 of the 'obligation to Watson, the plaintiff, and gave an order on the back of the bond for Dun to convey to him, which Dun agreed that he would convey, if the order was presented in a reasonable time. The land was afterwards selected on a list given by Dun, and a -deed demanded, which Dun refused, saying he had never agreed to convey to Watson separately. In 1829, Dun wrote to Watson that he had now placed him in the stead of McKay.
Leonard and G. Swan for the plaintiff.
Creighton and Bond for the defendant.

Opinion:
COLLETT, C. J.
instructed the jury, that if they were satisfieff,from the evidence, that Dun has substituted Watson for the $600 worth of land in the place of McKay, and had afterwards refused to convey the land, that excused Watson from making any other demand of the deed, and gave him the right to resort at once to his suit, and if that were the case, they sho'uld find for the plaintiff the $600, with interest from the demand and refusal.
Verdict for the plaintiff, $783 and judgment.