Dow v. Whetten

Court for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors

Dow v. Whetten

1 Lock. Rev. Cas. 255

CourtCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors

DecidedJuly 1, 1799

StatusPublished

This text of 1 Lock. Rev. Cas. 255 (Dow v. Whetten) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Dow v. Whetten, 1 Lock. Rev. Cas. 255 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1799).

Pincite

Opinion

The Supreme Court held that the identical goods were not included in the words “proceeds home,” and that parol evidence was inadmissible to prove the usage or practice. On writ of error,

The Court of Errors held, that though the words “ proceeds home,” did not cover the identical goods, yet it was competent for the assured to show, by parol proof, that by the usage of trade, or by use and practice, as between assurers and assured, they were understood to include them. The ■ judgment was accordingly reversed, and a venire de novo awarded, and the costs of reversing the judgment were ordered to abide the event of the cause; the court doubting whether such usage could be proved.

Judgment reversed, 17 to 5.

On the second trial of this cause, the plaintiff failed to establish the usage, and the defendants had a verdict in their favor.

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

The Supreme Court held that the identical goods were not included in the words “proceeds home,” and that parol evidence was inadmissible to prove the usage or practice. On writ of error,

The Court of Errors held, that though the words “ proceeds home,” did not cover the identical goods, yet it was competent for the assured to show, by parol proof, that by the usage of trade, or by use and practice, as between assurers and assured, they were understood to include them. The ■ judgment was accordingly reversed, and a venire de novo awarded, and the costs of reversing the judgment were ordered to abide the event of the cause; the court doubting whether such usage could be proved.

Judgment reversed, 17 to 5.

On the second trial of this cause, the plaintiff failed to establish the usage, and the defendants had a verdict in their favor.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Lock. Rev. Cas. 255, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dow-v-whetten-nycterr-1799.