Chambers v. Austin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Chambers v. Austin

57 A.D. 359, 68 N.Y.S. 53

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJanuary 15, 1901

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 57 A.D. 359 (Chambers v. Austin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Chambers v. Austin, 57 A.D. 359, 68 N.Y.S. 53 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1901).

Pincite

Opinion

Edwards, J.:

The question in this case is on whom must fall the loss of the 2,145 feet of lumber destroyed by fire on May 24, 1899, and that depends upon the question as to whether the title was at that time vested in. the plaintiff or'in the defendant.

The agreement was not for any specific lumber finished and ready for delivery. It was for 10,000 feet of lumber* 6,000 to be of a certain quality-and finish, and 4,000 of another, a part to be-ready at defendant’s mill by May fifteenth and the remainder by June first. The defendant then had in his mill yard 25,000 or 30,000 feet of lumber, from which it was contemplated by the parties -that the lumber for the plaintiff should be selected, planed and prepared by'the defendant, but no part of that lumber was set apart or designated by the parties, as the property of the plaintiff.- The contract was purely executory on the part o‘f the defendant, and under it he retained title to the 2,145 feet in question until it should be set apart for the plaintiff in its completed state and she duly notified that it was ready for delivery. (Comfort v. Kiersted, 26 Barb. 472; Halterline v. Rice, 62 id. 593; Higgins v. Murray, 4 Hun, 565; Bliss Co. v. U. S. Incandescent Gas Light Co., 149 N. Y. 300.) The plaintiff had no' notice that this 2,145 feet had been completed and no opportunity to inspect or accept it before the fire. If the defendant, after the Completion of this lumber, on the seventeenth of May, had sold and - delivered it to some other customer, it cannot be [361]*361questioned that such purchaser would have had a good title. The title was in the defendant at the time of the fire and he must bear the loss.

The judgment of the County Court a,nd of the Justice’s Court should be reversed, with costs.

All concurred. -

Judgment of the County Court and of the Justice reversed on the law and facts, with costs of this court and in the courts below.

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

Edwards, J.:

The question in this case is on whom must fall the loss of the 2,145 feet of lumber destroyed by fire on May 24, 1899, and that depends upon the question as to whether the title was at that time vested in. the plaintiff or'in the defendant.

The agreement was not for any specific lumber finished and ready for delivery. It was for 10,000 feet of lumber* 6,000 to be of a certain quality-and finish, and 4,000 of another, a part to be-ready at defendant’s mill by May fifteenth and the remainder by June first. The defendant then had in his mill yard 25,000 or 30,000 feet of lumber, from which it was contemplated by the parties -that the lumber for the plaintiff should be selected, planed and prepared by'the defendant, but no part of that lumber was set apart or designated by the parties, as the property of the plaintiff.- The contract was purely executory on the part o‘f the defendant, and under it he retained title to the 2,145 feet in question until it should be set apart for the plaintiff in its completed state and she duly notified that it was ready for delivery. (Comfort v. Kiersted, 26 Barb. 472; Halterline v. Rice, 62 id. 593; Higgins v. Murray, 4 Hun, 565; Bliss Co. v. U. S. Incandescent Gas Light Co., 149 N. Y. 300.) The plaintiff had no' notice that this 2,145 feet had been completed and no opportunity to inspect or accept it before the fire. If the defendant, after the Completion of this lumber, on the seventeenth of May, had sold and - delivered it to some other customer, it cannot be [361]*361questioned that such purchaser would have had a good title. The title was in the defendant at the time of the fire and he must bear the loss.

The judgment of the County Court a,nd of the Justice’s Court should be reversed, with costs.

All concurred. -

Judgment of the County Court and of the Justice reversed on the law and facts, with costs of this court and in the courts below.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

57 A.D. 359, 68 N.Y.S. 53, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chambers-v-austin-nyappdiv-1901.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack