Bennett v. Hull
New York Supreme Court
IN ERROR, on certiorari, from a justice’s court. Hull sued Bennett before the justice, for a breach of promise, in not delivering to the plaintiff, on board of his vessel, 100 barrels of apples, whenever the vessel should be ready^to receive them, and the defendant was then to receive payment1 in liquors* &c. out of the plaintiff’s store. It was proved that the plaintiff gave notice to the defendant when the vessel was ready to receive the apples, &c.
Read the full summary
IN ERROR, on certiorari, from a justice’s court. Hull sued Bennett before the justice, for a breach of promise, in not delivering to the plaintiff, on board of his vessel, 100 barrels of apples, whenever the vessel should be ready^to receive them, and the defendant was then to receive payment1 in liquors* &c. out of the plaintiff’s store. It was proved that the plaintiff gave notice to the defendant when the vessel was ready to receive the apples, &c. The justice gave judgment for the plaintiff, for 25 dollars damages, °
1Per curiam
Under the 15th section of our statute of frauds, (sess. 10. c. 44.) and which is the same as the 17th section of the x ' English statute, ho contract for the sale of goods, unless there be a delivery of part, or earnest given, or a note or memorandum ™ writing, is valid. Here is neither; and as the price of the 100 barrels of apples is presumed to have been above 25 dollars, * a a this case was clearly within the statute of frauds. The statute applies as well to executory as to other contracts; and the decisions of the English courts, on this point, in Rondeau v. Wyatt, (2 II. Bl. 63.) and in…
2Cited by16 opinions
- Franklin v. Matoa Gold Min. Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1907
- Meincke v. FalkWisconsin Supreme Court · 1882
- Sewall v. FitchNew York Supreme Court · 1828
- Atwater v. HoughSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1861
- Donovan v. WillsonNew York Supreme Court · 1857
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.