George Leuders & Co. v. Fahlberg Saccharine Works

150 N.Y.S. 635
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York·Decided December 24, 1914·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

BIJUR, J.

[1, 2] Plaintiff sues for damages caused by the failure of defendant to deliver certain goods. The letters in evidence, which constituted the contract between the parties, do not, as I read them, indicate any place of delivery. Consequently section 124 of the Personal Property Law applies, and makes the place of delivery the seller’s (appellant’s) place of business, and as plaintiff respondent did not call for the goods, there was no breach of contract by defendant. Moreover, without a tender of the purchase price (which was not made) respondent had not placed defendant in default. British. Aluminum Co., Ltd., v. Trefts, 163 App. Div. 184, 148 N. Y. Supp. 144.

Judgment reversed, with costs, 'and complaint dismissed. All concur.

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

George Leuders & Co. v. Fahlberg Saccharine Works, 150 N.Y.S. 635 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1914).

150 N.Y.S. 635 (George Leuders & Co. v. Fahlberg Saccharine Works) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Harold N. Holt v. Seversky Electronatom Corporation
452 F.2d 31 (Second Circuit, 1971)