14 Ky. 137 | Ky. Ct. App. | 1823
Opinion of the Cocjiit,
* THIS is an action of covenant, brought on an instrument of writing to the following effect: ' “ Memorandum of an agreement made betwéeh Dudley¿Read of the one part, and Robert Cisney of the oth-ehpart: Whereas Robert Cisney sets m with Dudley ftea’d'on the 25th day of [this] inslántjAo maíce a crop; fKe said Read finds two hands and all the iarrhirtg tópR^ánd all the horses and horse-feed, and finds tlie éáitf Cisney his board, when working at the home place; but the' said Cisney finds his own board*, wfien working at the other plate. And the said Cisney is to pay due attention to carry on the farm, till the crop is made and duly taken care of. And. the said Cisney, in so doing, Wits have one fourth of all that they make; and'the llfiypisney is to have one fourth of the wheat that ‘ is HBmgrowing; and the said Cisneyfis to help puffin,as m©§w¿ieat as is now growing, next September; and thefaTd Read is to give the said Cisney, ten dollars in the bargaiñ.”
On this covenant Cisney declared, and after reciting thg covenant, sets out for breach “ that the §aid defendant to keep and perform his part of said covenant hath not, but hath broken the same in this, to wit, that he did not let said plaintiff have one fourth of all said ntáj'nüff and defendant made on the farm aforesaid, vfhipyi said plaintiff avers was of the value of three hundred ¿Toilers, although to do'so fie hath been often thereto requested; that' he- hath failed and refused to
Affer assigning the foregoing breaches, the plaintiff helqw proceeds with, averments on his p.art, to make ^out his cause of actipn, to this effe.ct : “ The, said,,p,^,in-‘ tiff now in fact further avers, that he paid due attention!^ to cqxry on the farm, until the crop was made and dujy taken care of, except when prevented from so doing, by the defendant; and further, that he done all, he was hound to do, according to the tenor and effect of said covenant; *b.ut avers that .he was prevented by said defendant from the completion of the same.”
After issue joined, a verdict and judgment were rendered for the plaintiff below, and a motion for, a new trial was madg^ind overruled, and that opinion excepted to and ,the evidence spread upon the record.
The defendant below', now plaintiffin error, assigns for error: '
First, that the breaches in the declaration arq'ips.uf-ficient, and show no good cause of action.
Secondly, that there is no sufficient averment thaf the plaintiff below had performed the precedent condition on his part, or sufficient excuse alleged for not performing it.
Thirdly, that the court erred in overruling the tion for a new trial.
Notwithstanding this declaration is both unsli and awkwardly drawn, by attempting to show a cause of action after the breach was assigned, by inverting the proper order of things, in first setting out the cause of action and then exhibiting title to it, by averring performance on the part of the plaintiff below;, yet, we conceive, that the breaches, considered separately, are well assigned. They pursue the words of the covenant, or approximate them so nearly that the tenor is pursued; and if the breaches are true, the defendant below must be liable. .
As to the averment of a performance of the precedent condition, the plaintiff below hás not been so successful.
« 3*3 ¿- 2 |g f g'3* g r5* p f? h© cd.-Zp Cij f-*■ ^ CD ^ Sf & at S rn m-70 <D--Pi CD B^r1? 4-(§,-3. rv, <i^,. >2, <*; S £M ^1^'S; §4cL ts- So* §• 2 g- es-4* f* *' 1 z- 0 ’ tí Oh w4. es; ttSigr Jf. 2-2? Q?ft*;-tí'r O • 0 !T.^ JT , C¿3a.rt* O 2. o <6^0, *-- p ■*!. ,**- a* o - 3 o. p' o, * H- ^ o 5 cd3 er <**- 0 ^ ^ 2 P o t0 rr cr • ct> s >- 2 es S'.eS’ fB ,.■- - <J I-K, C° o rr “ SSg.-3 es es S. D;*tí r* _ a _4 b-*S es cr 3 o t r- 2- a. 6>, ® » 0 B. “‘o1^ a *-rt r/> * 0 2 cr E¿s| 9 gM 0^4 £2-cr 0^ u¿i co cr B a Pj o1^ f* Bi ■54®*'g'í -aá2-p. O S* o _ £, o cr c o- v
