Atlantic Coast Lumber Corp. v. McCaldin Bros.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Atlantic Coast Lumber Corp. v. McCaldin Bros.

76 Misc. 528, 135 N.Y.S. 627

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedMay 15, 1912

StatusPublished

This text of 76 Misc. 528 (Atlantic Coast Lumber Corp. v. McCaldin Bros.) 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

Atlantic Coast Lumber Corp. v. McCaldin Bros., 76 Misc. 528, 135 N.Y.S. 627 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

Page, J.

The action was to recover $755.17, the agreed price of certain lumber sold and delivered by the plaintiff to the defendant. The defendant admitted that it had' used one-third of the lumber, but claimed the right to reject the remainder, and pleads as a defense to this action that the plaintiff warranted the lumber to be merchantable and fit for use, and as good, if' not better, than the lumber'heretofore delivered by the plaintiff to the defendant, which they allege it was not, and that the lumber delivered was worth $550 less than it would have been had it been as represented. The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff for the sum of $250. '

[529]*529Hr. McCaldin testified that the plaintifi’s salesman came to his office and said “ that he had 150,000 feet in the dock of box bark strips which he would let me have for ten dollars a thousand feet, which was much below the market value -— and the only thing that was the matter with them-was that they were weather-beaten at the ends, the usual run of box bark strips * * *. I had purchased box bark strips from him before. He said that this was better than the others. It was a better lot of strips than we had before.” Conceding that the salesman made these statements they were mere descriptions, and,, as the alleged defects were patent and discoverable upon inspection, if defendant desired to repudiate the sale it should have rejected them, but in this case it accepted the lumber and used a part. There was no warranty that would survive acceptance. Staiger v. Soht, 116 App. Div. 874; affd., 191 N. Y. 527, and cases there cited.

The case was submitted to the jury on an erroneous theory and proper exception was taken.

The judgment is, therefore, reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.

Seabury and Lehman, JJ., concur. ‘

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide event.

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

Page, J.

The action was to recover $755.17, the agreed price of certain lumber sold and delivered by the plaintiff to the defendant. The defendant admitted that it had' used one-third of the lumber, but claimed the right to reject the remainder, and pleads as a defense to this action that the plaintiff warranted the lumber to be merchantable and fit for use, and as good, if' not better, than the lumber'heretofore delivered by the plaintiff to the defendant, which they allege it was not, and that the lumber delivered was worth $550 less than it would have been had it been as represented. The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff for the sum of $250. '

[529]*529Hr. McCaldin testified that the plaintifi’s salesman came to his office and said “ that he had 150,000 feet in the dock of box bark strips which he would let me have for ten dollars a thousand feet, which was much below the market value -— and the only thing that was the matter with them-was that they were weather-beaten at the ends, the usual run of box bark strips * * *. I had purchased box bark strips from him before. He said that this was better than the others. It was a better lot of strips than we had before.” Conceding that the salesman made these statements they were mere descriptions, and,, as the alleged defects were patent and discoverable upon inspection, if defendant desired to repudiate the sale it should have rejected them, but in this case it accepted the lumber and used a part. There was no warranty that would survive acceptance. Staiger v. Soht, 116 App. Div. 874; affd., 191 N. Y. 527, and cases there cited.

The case was submitted to the jury on an erroneous theory and proper exception was taken.

The judgment is, therefore, reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.

Seabury and Lehman, JJ., concur. ‘

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant to abide event.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

76 Misc. 528, 135 N.Y.S. 627, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/atlantic-coast-lumber-corp-v-mccaldin-bros-nyappterm-1912.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack