Tice v. Zinsser
Opinion of the Court
By the indorsement put upon the agreement in October, 1871, it was rescinded and canceled, and as this indorsement contained no conditions the parties stood towards each other as if no agreement had been made between them.
The plaintiff could recover nothing for any improvements he had put upon the property because there was no undertaking to pay for them, and the defendant could not retain the money that had been paid on account of the property, in expectation of a fulfillment of the contract and a conveyance of the property for the reason that he canceled the agreement and accepted a surrender of the premises unconditionally and without any stipulation for compensation. (Gillet v. Maynard, 5 John., 86; Battle v. Rochester City Bank, 3 N. Y., 88.)
It is claimed on the part of the defendant, that as the plaintiff could not have recovered back the money he had paid on the agreement before the indorsement thereon of the contract of rescission, he cannot now recover back the money paid, because he has surrendered his right to do so. We cannot subscribe to this propo
These considerations lead to the conclusion' that the judgment appealed from must be reversed.
The order vacating the verdict must also be set aside and the plaintiff must have judgment upon his verdict with costs.
Judgment and order setting aside verdict and dismissing plaintiff’s complaint reversed, and judgment ordered for the plaintiff on the verdict.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.