McIlvaine v. Egerton
The Superior Court of New York City
This action was brought to recover upon a contract for the, sale of a quantity of pork. The complaint alleged that in May, 1862, one Leaycraft agreed to sell and deliver to the defendants, and that the defendants agreed to purchase and receive, one thousand barrels of mess pork.
Read the full summary
This action was brought to recover upon a contract for the, sale of a quantity of pork. The complaint alleged that in May, 1862, one Leaycraft agreed to sell and deliver to the defendants, and that the defendants agreed to purchase and receive, one thousand barrels of mess pork. That the pork should be delivered at the buyer’s option, during the month of July, 1862, the buyer giving five days written notice of delivery, and that an accepted order on any of the regular inspection yards, should constitute a delivery. On the 9th of June, 1862, Leaycraft assigned the agreement to the plaintiffs,…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
Monell, J.
The provision in the contract with Leaycraft, that an accepted order on any of the regular inspection yards should constitute a delivery, rendered a tender of the pork unnecessary, and therefore the plaintiffs’ order upon Amelung & Co., accepted by them, was a literal and sufficient compliance with the contract.
The agreement was to deliver at a future day. On the day of the tender the plaintiffs had the pork ready for delivery.
The objection that at the time of making the contract the vendor was not the owner nor in possession of the merchandise, and that it was a mere…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Dykers v. . TownsendNew York Court of Appeals · 1861
- Vassear v. . LivingstonNew York Court of Appeals · 1855
- Bunn v. RikerNew York Supreme Court · 1809
- Lansing v. LansingNew York Supreme Court · 1811
- Davidson v. RemingtonNew York Supreme Court · 1855
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Merrill v. GreenNew York Supreme Court · 1873