Case Name: Henry Bohm, Respondent, v. Isaac Goldstein, Appellant
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1873-09-23
Citations: 53 N.Y. 634
Docket Number: 
Parties: Henry Bohm, Respondent, v. Isaac Goldstein, Appellant.
Judges: All concur, except Allen and Grover, JJ.,' dissenting.
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 53
Pages: 634–635

Head Matter:
Henry Bohm, Respondent, v. Isaac Goldstein, Appellant.
(Argued June 10, 1873;
decided September 23, 1873.)
Defendant contracted to sell certain premises to plaintiff, and to convey them at a time specified. Plaintiff declined to accept a deed, he claiming that there was a doubt about -the title, on the ground of a possible escheat, defendant having been an alien at the time he purchased. A contract in writing, dated March 7, 1866, was thereupon executed reciting the premises, whereby the defendant, in consideration of one dollar, covenanted to procure a release of all interests in the State in fifteen months; and upon his failure authorizing the plaintiff to do the same, and agreeing to pay all expenses. Defendant failed to procure such release; and after the fifteen months plaintiff, upon notice to defendant, and without objection, procured an .act to be passed releasing all interests in the State, which act was dated April 20, 1867. This was done at an expense of $550.50.
This action was brought to recover that amount. Upon the trial defendant moved to dismiss the complaint: 1st. because it stated no cause of action, as there was no consideration for the contract. 2d. That at the time when the act of release was procured fall relief had been granted by a prior general law passed May 1, 1868. 3d. That a contract to refund money paid to procure the passage of an act by the legislature was void. Reid, (Alien and Grover, JJ., dissenting), that the motion was properly denied: 1st. That it did not appear that defendant was ever naturalized, so that a release was not necessary. But, even if there was no necessity for the act of release, an injury to the promisee was as valid a consideration as a benefit to the promisor, and the expenses incurred were a sufficient consideration for the promise ; 2d. It did not appear that defendant had been in possession so as to bring the case within the act of 1868, or that a portion of the expenses were not incurred prior to that act; 3d. That plaintiff might have incurred legitimate expenses in procuring the passage of the act; and no question having been raised upon the trial that the proof showed any part of the expenses to have been illegal, it would not be presumed.
A. J. Requier for the appellant.
F. F. Marbury for the respondent.

Opinion:
Peckham, J.,
reads for affirmance.
All concur, except Allen and Grover, JJ.,' dissenting.
Judgment affirmed.