Binger Co. v. Blumberg

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Binger Co. v. Blumberg

76 Misc. 432, 134 N.Y.S. 1115

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedMay 15, 1912

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 76 Misc. 432 (Binger Co. v. Blumberg) 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

Binger Co. v. Blumberg, 76 Misc. 432, 134 N.Y.S. 1115 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1912).

Pincite

Opinion

iSeab.ury, J.

Plaintiff sued to recover $300 alleged to be due for services rendered in making 300 signs which the plaintiff claimed it completed and offered to defendants and which the latter refused to accept. The signs were made under a contract which provided “ 150 signs to be' delivered at once and balance in three months from date of order.” The contract was dated March 3, 1911. The plaintiff offered to deliver the goods on April 6, 1911.

' The defendants refused to accept them saying: “ It’s too late now, as my man is out on the' road.” The .evidence .showed 'that these .signs were to be used by the defendants’' salesman for distribution among the eastern trade. The contract specified that the delivery should be made “ at once.” The plaintiff did not establish his right-to recover by showing that he offered to deliver six weeks after the contract was made. The contract by using the words “ at once ” contemplated that delivery should be promptly made or that it [433]*433should he made with greater celerity than is ordinarily comprehended by a reasonable time. Lewis v. Hojer, 16 N. Y. Supp. 534; Tobias v. Lissberger, 105 N. Y. 410; Hirsch v. Annin, 28 Misc. Rep. 228.

Gut and Gerard, JJ., concur.

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

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

iSeab.ury, J.

Plaintiff sued to recover $300 alleged to be due for services rendered in making 300 signs which the plaintiff claimed it completed and offered to defendants and which the latter refused to accept. The signs were made under a contract which provided “ 150 signs to be' delivered at once and balance in three months from date of order.” The contract was dated March 3, 1911. The plaintiff offered to deliver the goods on April 6, 1911.

' The defendants refused to accept them saying: “ It’s too late now, as my man is out on the' road.” The .evidence .showed 'that these .signs were to be used by the defendants’' salesman for distribution among the eastern trade. The contract specified that the delivery should be made “ at once.” The plaintiff did not establish his right-to recover by showing that he offered to deliver six weeks after the contract was made. The contract by using the words “ at once ” contemplated that delivery should be promptly made or that it [433]*433should he made with greater celerity than is ordinarily comprehended by a reasonable time. Lewis v. Hojer, 16 N. Y. Supp. 534; Tobias v. Lissberger, 105 N. Y. 410; Hirsch v. Annin, 28 Misc. Rep. 228.

Gut and Gerard, JJ., concur.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

76 Misc. 432, 134 N.Y.S. 1115, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/binger-co-v-blumberg-nyappterm-1912.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack