Corlies v. Gardner

The Superior Court of New York City

Corlies v. Gardner

2 Hall 345

CourtThe Superior Court of New York City

DecidedOctober 15, 1829

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 2 Hall 345 (Corlies v. Gardner) 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

Corlies v. Gardner, 2 Hall 345 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1829).

Pincite

Opinion

Oakley, J.

It is no doubt the general rule, that when goods are sold upon a special agreement, which continues executory, no general indebitatus assumpsit will lie. In the present case, however, it is clear from the evidence, that the sale was, in truth, considered a cash sale, unless the buyer should give’ an endorsed note, at six months. The credit which he was to have, was on con dition that he gave the security, and the delivery of the goods was upon the same condition.

Under these circumstances, there can be no question, but that the plaintiffs had a right to reclaim the goods, if they remained in the hands of the defendants, upon their refusal to comply with the conditions of the sale; or to treat the sale as an absolute one, without credit, and to bring their action for the price.

In the cases cited by the defendant’s counsel, the sale and delivery of the goods were absolute, but to be paid for in a peculiar manner, at a subsequent period. In this case, the "sale and delivery were strictly conditional; If the defendants refused to perform the condition, and still kept the goods, they were bound to pay for them immediately.

Motion to set aside the non-suit, and for a new trial denied.

[B. Clarke, Att’y for the plffs. J. Wallis, Att’y for the deft.]

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

Oakley, J.

It is no doubt the general rule, that when goods are sold upon a special agreement, which continues executory, no general indebitatus assumpsit will lie. In the present case, however, it is clear from the evidence, that the sale was, in truth, considered a cash sale, unless the buyer should give’ an endorsed note, at six months. The credit which he was to have, was on con dition that he gave the security, and the delivery of the goods was upon the same condition.

Under these circumstances, there can be no question, but that the plaintiffs had a right to reclaim the goods, if they remained in the hands of the defendants, upon their refusal to comply with the conditions of the sale; or to treat the sale as an absolute one, without credit, and to bring their action for the price.

In the cases cited by the defendant’s counsel, the sale and delivery of the goods were absolute, but to be paid for in a peculiar manner, at a subsequent period. In this case, the "sale and delivery were strictly conditional; If the defendants refused to perform the condition, and still kept the goods, they were bound to pay for them immediately.

Motion to set aside the non-suit, and for a new trial denied.

[B. Clarke, Att’y for the plffs. J. Wallis, Att’y for the deft.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 Hall 345, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/corlies-v-gardner-nysuperctnyc-1829.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack