Adelson v. Futuransky

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Adelson v. Futuransky

35 Misc. 801, 72 N.Y.S. 1093

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJune 15, 1901

StatusPublished

This text of 35 Misc. 801 (Adelson v. Futuransky) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Adelson v. Futuransky, 35 Misc. 801, 72 N.Y.S. 1093 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1901).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The defendant was justified in refusing to accept a partial performance of the plaintiff’s contract. The plaintiff recognized this and offered to accept a return of the goods. The defendant undertook to return them by an expressman of his own choosing, who for this purpose became his agent. He was bound to return all the goods or none, and the plaintiff had the right to refuse to accept a partial return. The defendant in point of fact did not return the goods he had received, and should pay their value. The judgment, as rendered by the justice, was irregular, and should be modified so as to be a simple money judgment for sixty-six dollars, the proven value of the goods, with interest and costs, and as so modified, is affirmed, without costs.

Present: Scott, P. J., Beach and Fitzgerald, JJ.

Judgment modified and as so modified affirmed, without costs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

The defendant was justified in refusing to accept a partial performance of the plaintiff’s contract. The plaintiff recognized this and offered to accept a return of the goods. The defendant undertook to return them by an expressman of his own choosing, who for this purpose became his agent. He was bound to return all the goods or none, and the plaintiff had the right to refuse to accept a partial return. The defendant in point of fact did not return the goods he had received, and should pay their value. The judgment, as rendered by the justice, was irregular, and should be modified so as to be a simple money judgment for sixty-six dollars, the proven value of the goods, with interest and costs, and as so modified, is affirmed, without costs.

Present: Scott, P. J., Beach and Fitzgerald, JJ.

Judgment modified and as so modified affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

35 Misc. 801, 72 N.Y.S. 1093, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/adelson-v-futuransky-nyappterm-1901.