J. & W. Tool Co. v. Schulz

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

J. & W. Tool Co. v. Schulz

140 Misc. 652, 251 N.Y.S. 509, 1931 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1443

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJune 29, 1931

StatusPublished

This text of 140 Misc. 652 (J. & W. Tool Co. v. Schulz) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

J. & W. Tool Co. v. Schulz, 140 Misc. 652, 251 N.Y.S. 509, 1931 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1443 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

If the plaintiff intended to proceed under section 145 of the Personal Property Law (added by Laws of 1911, chap. 571) to recover damages for the breach by the defendant of his contract to accept and pay for the dies, it was necessary to establish the market value of the dies, if they had any market value. The plaintiff would then be entitled to recover the difference between the contract and the market price. If the plaintiff intended to proceed under subdivision 3 of section 144 of the Personal Property Law (as amd. by Laws of 1925, chap. 560) to recover the price of the dies, it was necessary to establish that the dies could not readily be resold for a reasonable price and notice to the defendant that they were held by the plaintiff as bailee. The record is destitute of any evidence concerning the market value of the dies or whether they could be resold for a reasonable price or whether the plaintiff gave notice to the defendant as required by section 144 (added by Laws of 1911, chap. 571). For this reason the judgment must be reversed and a new trial ordered.

Judgment reversed and a new trial ordered, with thirty dollars costs to appellant to abide the event.

All concur; present, Levy, Callahan and Untermyer, JJ.

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

Per Curiam.

If the plaintiff intended to proceed under section 145 of the Personal Property Law (added by Laws of 1911, chap. 571) to recover damages for the breach by the defendant of his contract to accept and pay for the dies, it was necessary to establish the market value of the dies, if they had any market value. The plaintiff would then be entitled to recover the difference between the contract and the market price. If the plaintiff intended to proceed under subdivision 3 of section 144 of the Personal Property Law (as amd. by Laws of 1925, chap. 560) to recover the price of the dies, it was necessary to establish that the dies could not readily be resold for a reasonable price and notice to the defendant that they were held by the plaintiff as bailee. The record is destitute of any evidence concerning the market value of the dies or whether they could be resold for a reasonable price or whether the plaintiff gave notice to the defendant as required by section 144 (added by Laws of 1911, chap. 571). For this reason the judgment must be reversed and a new trial ordered.

Judgment reversed and a new trial ordered, with thirty dollars costs to appellant to abide the event.

All concur; present, Levy, Callahan and Untermyer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

140 Misc. 652, 251 N.Y.S. 509, 1931 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1443, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/j-w-tool-co-v-schulz-nyappterm-1931.