The Superior Court of New York City, 1886

Thompson v. Lyons

Thompson v. Lyons
The Superior Court of New York City · Decided December 17, 1886
22 Jones & S. 101

Counsel

Souther & Stedman, attorneys, and C. E. Souther, of counsel for appellant, on the questions considered in the opinion, argued:, Kelly & Macrae, attorneys, and Wm. F. Macrae, of counsel for respondent, on the questions considered in the opinion, argued:

Thompson v. Lyons

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam.

The stipulation made and signed by the parties showed that the contract was rescinded. This presumptively meant a mutual rescission, and, in the absence of evidence rebutting the presumption, justified the finding that the rescission was by mutual agreement. This being so, although the contract was not strictly one for the exchange of real estate, the plaintiff became entitled to recover back what he had paid on account of the contract and the defendant could not maintain recoupment. There cannot be a rescission in part and an affirmance in part. The learned judge below was therefore right in the determination made by him.

The judgment must be affirmed with costs.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.