Delamater v. Miller
New York Supreme Court
Assumpsit, by Miller against Delamater; for that the former had exchanged his horse with one Schermerhom for his (S’s) watch, which was in Delamater’s possession at his (D’s) house ; and which he, being present at the contract, agreed to keep and deliver to Miller, who said he should call for it on the Saturday following.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit, by Miller against Delamater; for that the former had exchanged his horse with one Schermerhom for his (S’s) watch, which was in Delamater’s possession at his (D’s) house ; and which he, being present at the contract, agreed to keep and deliver to Miller, who said he should call for it on the Saturday following. Miller did not demand it till the Sunday following, when Delamater refused to deliver it, assuming to retain it for a dollar due him from Schermerhom ; and he afterwards gave up the watch to Schermerhom, who sold it. Judgment for the plaintiff.
1Opinion of the Court
Curia,
The defendant was not bound to regard the demand on Sunday ; (vid. Cowen’s Treatise, 135, and the cases
*76there cited) (a) hut, as the defendant parted with the, watch, and thereby put it out of his power to pcfform the, contract, the plaintiff was excused from the necessity of making any demand, (Sir Anthony Main’s case, 5. Rep. 21 *r~fhe 2d resolution in that case.)
And the judgment was affirmed.
-The cases referred tp there, ■ though they apply tp this case in principle, yet relate more immediately to the question, whether a contract or sale made on Sunday -s void. Morgan v. Richards, (1…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Lester v. Delaware, L. & W. RailroadNew York Supreme Court · 1895
- Neal v. CrewSupreme Court of Georgia · 1852
- Campbell v. ParkerThe Superior Court of New York City · 1862
- Towle v. LarrabeeSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1847
- Rosenthal Paper Co. v. National Folding Box & Paper Co.City of New York Municipal Court · 1915
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.