Robinson Clay Product Co. v. John H. Thatcher & Sons

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Robinson Clay Product Co. v. John H. Thatcher & Sons

154 N.Y.S. 106

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedJune 28, 1915

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 154 N.Y.S. 106 (Robinson Clay Product Co. v. John H. Thatcher & Sons) 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

Robinson Clay Product Co. v. John H. Thatcher & Sons, 154 N.Y.S. 106 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1915).

Pincite

Opinion

PAGE, J.

This is the second appeal in this case. The facts are sufficiently stated in the former appeal. 150 N. Y. Supp. 658. We then held that the time for delivery was not of the essence of the contract as originally made, and had not subsequently been made of the essence of the contract by the defendant giving notice of its intention to cancel the order unless delivery was made on or before a fixed time. We further pointed out that if the time had been fixed in the original contract, as defendant contended, that the defendant had waived it “by an acceptance of a portion of the order after that [time] and requesting the plaintiff to thereafter deliver the tile, and, once waived, notice fixing a new time was necessary.” The testimony on this trial was substantially the same as before, and the court below should have directed a verdict for the plaintiff.

Judgment reversed, with costs to appellant, and judgment directed for the plaintiff for $233.58, with interest from June 20, 1913, with costs. All concur.

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

PAGE, J.

This is the second appeal in this case. The facts are sufficiently stated in the former appeal. 150 N. Y. Supp. 658. We then held that the time for delivery was not of the essence of the contract as originally made, and had not subsequently been made of the essence of the contract by the defendant giving notice of its intention to cancel the order unless delivery was made on or before a fixed time. We further pointed out that if the time had been fixed in the original contract, as defendant contended, that the defendant had waived it “by an acceptance of a portion of the order after that [time] and requesting the plaintiff to thereafter deliver the tile, and, once waived, notice fixing a new time was necessary.” The testimony on this trial was substantially the same as before, and the court below should have directed a verdict for the plaintiff.

Judgment reversed, with costs to appellant, and judgment directed for the plaintiff for $233.58, with interest from June 20, 1913, with costs. All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

154 N.Y.S. 106, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robinson-clay-product-co-v-john-h-thatcher-sons-nyappterm-1915.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack