Auto Spring Repairer Co. v. Mutual Auto Accessories Co.

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Auto Spring Repairer Co. v. Mutual Auto Accessories Co.

72 Misc. 402, 130 N.Y.S. 140

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJune 15, 1911

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 72 Misc. 402 (Auto Spring Repairer Co. v. Mutual Auto Accessories Co.) 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

Auto Spring Repairer Co. v. Mutual Auto Accessories Co., 72 Misc. 402, 130 N.Y.S. 140 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1911).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff seeks to recover the purchase price of the balance of goods alleged to have been bought by [403]*403the defendant under a contract between the parties. The learned trial judge awarded judgment in plaintiff’s favor for the full amount.

Defendant sent to plaintiff an order, for twelve gross of goods to be delivered one gross per month. This order was never accepted by plaintiff which, therefore, never agreed to deliver the goods.

After plaintiff had delivered a number of installments, the defendant wrote, in substance, that it would receive no more of these goods. There was also a tender of some of the goods by plaintiff at or about this time. No binding executory agreement arose from the transaction. White v. Kingston Motor Car Co., 69 Misc. Rep. 627, and cases therein cited. The mere delivery of some installments under this order did not change its character. Chicago & G. E. R. Co. v. Dane, 43 N. Y. 240; Quick v. Wheeler, 78 id. 300.

To the extent that goods were delivered or properly tendered before defendant cancelled the order, the plaintiff may he entitled to payment as upon an executed contract; but no recovery can be had on the agreement as an executory one. As the judgment, therefore, is manifestly based upon a misconception of the character of the cause of action and of the amount of damages to which plaintiff may be entitled, it must be reversed.

Defendant claims that, hy means of a previous action not prosecuted to judgment, the plaintiff has elected a remedy inconsistent with the present one; but I find that there has been no such election, because, apart from any other consideration, the complaint in the • first action is so vague and indefinite as to render it quite impossible to understand on what theory it was drawn, or to warrant any.just inference as to the course pursued or position taken by plaintiff before the first action was brought.

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

Present: Seabuby, Guy and Bijub, JJ.

Judgment reversed.

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

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff seeks to recover the purchase price of the balance of goods alleged to have been bought by [403]*403the defendant under a contract between the parties. The learned trial judge awarded judgment in plaintiff’s favor for the full amount.

Defendant sent to plaintiff an order, for twelve gross of goods to be delivered one gross per month. This order was never accepted by plaintiff which, therefore, never agreed to deliver the goods.

After plaintiff had delivered a number of installments, the defendant wrote, in substance, that it would receive no more of these goods. There was also a tender of some of the goods by plaintiff at or about this time. No binding executory agreement arose from the transaction. White v. Kingston Motor Car Co., 69 Misc. Rep. 627, and cases therein cited. The mere delivery of some installments under this order did not change its character. Chicago & G. E. R. Co. v. Dane, 43 N. Y. 240; Quick v. Wheeler, 78 id. 300.

To the extent that goods were delivered or properly tendered before defendant cancelled the order, the plaintiff may he entitled to payment as upon an executed contract; but no recovery can be had on the agreement as an executory one. As the judgment, therefore, is manifestly based upon a misconception of the character of the cause of action and of the amount of damages to which plaintiff may be entitled, it must be reversed.

Defendant claims that, hy means of a previous action not prosecuted to judgment, the plaintiff has elected a remedy inconsistent with the present one; but I find that there has been no such election, because, apart from any other consideration, the complaint in the • first action is so vague and indefinite as to render it quite impossible to understand on what theory it was drawn, or to warrant any.just inference as to the course pursued or position taken by plaintiff before the first action was brought.

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

Present: Seabuby, Guy and Bijub, JJ.

Judgment reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

72 Misc. 402, 130 N.Y.S. 140, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/auto-spring-repairer-co-v-mutual-auto-accessories-co-nyappterm-1911.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack