Dexter v. Norton
55 Barb. 272, 1869 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 83
Opinions
I think there can be no doubt that this case was correctly disposed of at the circuit. It was conceded on the argument that the sale was of specific articles, [286] and that the title vested in the vendee. That being so, it is well settled that the loss follows or attaches to the title. The vendor becomes simply a bailee, and cannot, where there is no fault upon his part, be liable by reason of the destruction of the bailment. (Curtiss v. Prinderville, 53 Barb. 186.)
The judgment should be affirmed.
i
Geo. G. Barnard, J., concurred.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Dexter v. Norton, 55 Barb. 272, 1869 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 83 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1869).
55 Barb. 272 (Dexter v. Norton) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Tompkins v. . Dudley
25 N.Y. 272 (New York Court of Appeals, 1862)
Niblo v. Binsse
44 Barb. 54 (New York Supreme Court, 1864)
Curtiss v. Prinderville
53 Barb. 186 (New York Supreme Court, 1868)
Niblo v. Binsse
1 Keyes 476 (New York Court of Appeals, 1864)