L. B. Foster Co. v. Fox

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

L. B. Foster Co. v. Fox

124 Misc. 740, 209 N.Y.S. 230, 1925 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 747

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedApril 14, 1925

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 124 Misc. 740 (L. B. Foster Co. v. Fox) 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

L. B. Foster Co. v. Fox, 124 Misc. 740, 209 N.Y.S. 230, 1925 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 747 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1925).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam:

Plaintiff contracted to sell to defendants 750 size “ A ” Reading Rerailers. Deliveries were in installments; two installments were accepted and paid for. Defendants refused to specify deliveries for the third installment and plaintiff, claiming that there was no market, sold the implements as junk.

The burden, therefore, rested upon plaintiff to prove that the articles which it so resold complied with the description of the contract. (Chemung Iron & Steel Co. v. Smith & Hemenway, Inc., 203 App Div. 624.) There was no proof to this effect in plaintiff’s case in chief, for plaintiff’s witness testified that there was a different size, known as size “ A-2,” and that he was unable to tell whether the sample in court was a size “ A ” or size “ A-2 ” rerailer (unless he weighed it), size “ A ” being heavier by a fixed amount than size “ A-2.” Defendants then showed that the weight of the rerailers which were sold for junk did not correspond with the weight of size “ A ” rerailers. They also offered evidence of the original manufacturer that no size “A” rerailers had been made for the United States government. It had been conceded that plaintiff had purchased these rerailers from the government. The exclusion of this testimony was clearly error. There was thus affirmative proof that the rerailers did not comply with the con[741]*741tract description and the exclusion of evidence which tended further to corroborate this claim. Acceptance by the vendee of size “ A-2 ” rerailers under the two prior installment deliveries in nowise affected the vendor’s obligation to deliver size " A ” rerailers as the third installment. (Cahen v. Platt, 69 N. Y. 348; 2 Williston Sales [2d ed.], § 467d.)

The judgment must, therefore, be reversed, with costs, and the complaint dismissed, with costs.

All concur; present, Bijur, Mitchell and Mahoney, JJ.

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

Per Curiam:

Plaintiff contracted to sell to defendants 750 size “ A ” Reading Rerailers. Deliveries were in installments; two installments were accepted and paid for. Defendants refused to specify deliveries for the third installment and plaintiff, claiming that there was no market, sold the implements as junk.

The burden, therefore, rested upon plaintiff to prove that the articles which it so resold complied with the description of the contract. (Chemung Iron & Steel Co. v. Smith & Hemenway, Inc., 203 App Div. 624.) There was no proof to this effect in plaintiff’s case in chief, for plaintiff’s witness testified that there was a different size, known as size “ A-2,” and that he was unable to tell whether the sample in court was a size “ A ” or size “ A-2 ” rerailer (unless he weighed it), size “ A ” being heavier by a fixed amount than size “ A-2.” Defendants then showed that the weight of the rerailers which were sold for junk did not correspond with the weight of size “ A ” rerailers. They also offered evidence of the original manufacturer that no size “A” rerailers had been made for the United States government. It had been conceded that plaintiff had purchased these rerailers from the government. The exclusion of this testimony was clearly error. There was thus affirmative proof that the rerailers did not comply with the con[741]*741tract description and the exclusion of evidence which tended further to corroborate this claim. Acceptance by the vendee of size “ A-2 ” rerailers under the two prior installment deliveries in nowise affected the vendor’s obligation to deliver size " A ” rerailers as the third installment. (Cahen v. Platt, 69 N. Y. 348; 2 Williston Sales [2d ed.], § 467d.)

The judgment must, therefore, be reversed, with costs, and the complaint dismissed, with costs.

All concur; present, Bijur, Mitchell and Mahoney, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

124 Misc. 740, 209 N.Y.S. 230, 1925 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 747, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/l-b-foster-co-v-fox-nyappterm-1925.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack