Widman v. Straukamp

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

Widman v. Straukamp

94 N.Y.S. 18

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedMay 29, 1905

StatusPublished

This text of 94 N.Y.S. 18 (Widman v. Straukamp) 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

Widman v. Straukamp, 94 N.Y.S. 18 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1905).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

If these appeals be treated as bringing up all the questions of law and fact, still the judgment and order appealed from should be affirmed. For the purposes of the appeals' the orders of February 6th and July 8th may be considered as binding on the defendants. The order of February 6th was taken subject to delays or nondelivery caused by strikes, accidents, or for any reason beyond the control of the defendants. It was shown on the trial that the reason the goods were not delivered before the 15th of November was a reason beyond the control of the defendants. The goods, under the order of July 8th, were to be delivered as soon as possible after, September 15th. .'.The defendant's attempted to deliver on the 15th of November, but the plaintiffs refused to ac[19]*19■eept the delivery. The evidence was sufficient to warrant the judge in finding that the defendants delivered as soon as possible after September 15th, and that therefore the breach was the plaintiffs’ breach, and not that of the defendants.

Judgment and order appealed from affirmed, with costs.

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

PER CURIAM.

If these appeals be treated as bringing up all the questions of law and fact, still the judgment and order appealed from should be affirmed. For the purposes of the appeals' the orders of February 6th and July 8th may be considered as binding on the defendants. The order of February 6th was taken subject to delays or nondelivery caused by strikes, accidents, or for any reason beyond the control of the defendants. It was shown on the trial that the reason the goods were not delivered before the 15th of November was a reason beyond the control of the defendants. The goods, under the order of July 8th, were to be delivered as soon as possible after, September 15th. .'.The defendant's attempted to deliver on the 15th of November, but the plaintiffs refused to ac[19]*19■eept the delivery. The evidence was sufficient to warrant the judge in finding that the defendants delivered as soon as possible after September 15th, and that therefore the breach was the plaintiffs’ breach, and not that of the defendants.

Judgment and order appealed from affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

94 N.Y.S. 18, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/widman-v-straukamp-nyappterm-1905.