Brooklyn Oil Refinery v. Brown

The Superior Court of New York City

Brooklyn Oil Refinery v. Brown

42 How. Pr. 286

CourtThe Superior Court of New York City

DecidedNovember 15, 1871

StatusPublished

This text of 42 How. Pr. 286 (Brooklyn Oil Refinery v. Brown) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering The Superior Court of New York City primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Brooklyn Oil Refinery v. Brown, 42 How. Pr. 286 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1871).

Pincite

Opinion

Ry the court, Freedman, J.

Under the terms of the contract payment and delivery were to be simultaneous and concurrent acts, and plaintiff, therefore, although not bound to prove payment or tender of payment, was at least bound to establish that he was ready and willing to pay according to the provisions of the contract. Upon this point considerable evidence was given both ways, and sufficient thereof on each side to support a determination of the fact involved therein, in favor of ether party. It consequently raised a clear issue of facts and defendants had a right to ask its submission to the jury. As they did make such request, its refusal constituted error, for which a new trial must be granted, [288]*288irrespective of the other interesting questions which arose in the course of the trial, and were argued upon the appeal. This' view renders it quite unnecessary, therefore, to notice any of the latter.

The judgment should be reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to appellants, to abide the event.

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

Ry the court, Freedman, J.

Under the terms of the contract payment and delivery were to be simultaneous and concurrent acts, and plaintiff, therefore, although not bound to prove payment or tender of payment, was at least bound to establish that he was ready and willing to pay according to the provisions of the contract. Upon this point considerable evidence was given both ways, and sufficient thereof on each side to support a determination of the fact involved therein, in favor of ether party. It consequently raised a clear issue of facts and defendants had a right to ask its submission to the jury. As they did make such request, its refusal constituted error, for which a new trial must be granted, [288]*288irrespective of the other interesting questions which arose in the course of the trial, and were argued upon the appeal. This' view renders it quite unnecessary, therefore, to notice any of the latter.

The judgment should be reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to appellants, to abide the event.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

42 How. Pr. 286, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brooklyn-oil-refinery-v-brown-nysuperctnyc-1871.