Winchester & Partridge Manufacturing Co. v. Funge

Supreme Court

Winchester & Partridge Manufacturing Co. v. Funge

109 U.S. 651, 3 S. Ct. 436, 27 L. Ed. 1064, 1884 U.S. LEXIS 1741

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedJanuary 7, 1884

Docket1024

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 109 U.S. 651 (Winchester & Partridge Manufacturing Co. v. Funge) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Winchester & Partridge Manufacturing Co. v. Funge, 109 U.S. 651, 3 S. Ct. 436, 27 L. Ed. 1064, 1884 U.S. LEXIS 1741 (1884).

Pincite

Opinion

Me. Justice Blatcheord

delivered the opinion of the court.

We are of opinion that, on the terms of the receipt which expressed the contract between the parties, the appellant or its agents were required to determine, on receiving the wagons, whether they were in good condition and merchantable order, and were at liberty to reject them if not meeting those conditions ; that.the receiving the 21 and proceeding to sell them *654 was an acceptance of the 21 in payment jiro tanto of the claim; that the contract for the payment in wagons was unfulfilled, as to the i wagons not delivered; and that the price for which the 19 wagons were sold, and the selling value of the 2 not sold, have no bearing on the case under the first count, unless there be a surplus of the proceeds of sale, to be refunded to the appellee under the contract.

As to the second count, it sets forth a good cause of action. That count does not involve on its face any question as to the contract evidenced by the receipt embodied in the first count.

The judgment of the supreme court is reversed, with direction to it to reverse the judgment of the district court, and to take or direct such further proceedings in the suit as may he according to la/w and in conformity with this opwvioni

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

Me. Justice Blatcheord

delivered the opinion of the court.

We are of opinion that, on the terms of the receipt which expressed the contract between the parties, the appellant or its agents were required to determine, on receiving the wagons, whether they were in good condition and merchantable order, and were at liberty to reject them if not meeting those conditions ; that.the receiving the 21 and proceeding to sell them *654 was an acceptance of the 21 in payment jiro tanto of the claim; that the contract for the payment in wagons was unfulfilled, as to the i wagons not delivered; and that the price for which the 19 wagons were sold, and the selling value of the 2 not sold, have no bearing on the case under the first count, unless there be a surplus of the proceeds of sale, to be refunded to the appellee under the contract.

As to the second count, it sets forth a good cause of action. That count does not involve on its face any question as to the contract evidenced by the receipt embodied in the first count.

The judgment of the supreme court is reversed, with direction to it to reverse the judgment of the district court, and to take or direct such further proceedings in the suit as may he according to la/w and in conformity with this opwvioni

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

109 U.S. 651, 3 S. Ct. 436, 27 L. Ed. 1064, 1884 U.S. LEXIS 1741, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/winchester-partridge-manufacturing-co-v-funge-scotus-1884.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack