Butterfield v. Seligman

Campbell J. Plaintiff below sued upon the common counts, and on the trial was allowed to recover upon proof of a special written agreement, reciting the receipt of $600 as payment for certain lands, which defendant agreed to convey if he could make good title, and if he could not make good title, then he was to return to plaintiff $625. This was an attempt to recover for the breach of an express contract, and there is no principle which can allow its introduction in evidence for the purpose of recovering what it agrees to pay, and yet permit it to be treated as thrown out of the case after it has served its purpose. If there was any cause of action, it was upon the writing which the parties had seen fit to make the evidence of their contract, and the case does not come within any of the exceptions to the rule requiring such agreements to be declared on specially. The contract was not one where nothing remained to be done except paying the price for some work, or service, or commodity furnished under it. The condition was one sided, and claimed to have been broken, and the sum recoverable was nothing more nor less than stipulated damages. [99] The action was improperly brought, and the judgment must be reversed and a new trial granted. The other questions become immaterial as the issue stands. Cooley Oh. J. and Graves J. concurred. Christianoy J. did not sit.