Smith v. Smith

Headnote

In general, if no place for the payment of money be specified in a contract, the party who is to make the payment must seek the other party, if within the state; and a tender at the residence of the latter during his absence will not avail. But where the contract was for the sale of lands, specifying a day for the payment of the purchase. money, but no place, and on enquiry by the vendee, the vendor said she would be at home upon the day fixed; held, that a tender &c. at her residence on that day, to her son living with her, she having absented herself, was good.

This case will be found in 25 Wend. Rep. 405 . The report should have- added, that Bronson and Cowen, Js. concurred in holding the tender of the money, &c. under the circumstances, to be good. They held, however,- that, in general, if no place for the payment of money be specified, the party is bound to seek him to whom it is due, if within the state; and this, though the latter be a resident of the state. The Chief Justice, as will be seen by the report, thought this rule was confined to cases where the payee had no residence in the state.^[1]