Suydam, Reed & Co. v. Clark
The Superior Court of New York City
Assumpsit, to recover the difference on a contract of the defendants to purchase flour, which not being performed, the flour was re-sold at their risk. The cause was tried before the Chief Justice, on the 14th of April, 1848. The plaintiffs called W. L. Roberts, who testified that he was a produce broker in this city, and made the sale and purchase of the flour between the parties.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit, to recover the difference on a contract of the defendants to purchase flour, which not being performed, the flour was re-sold at their risk. The cause was tried before the Chief Justice, on the 14th of April, 1848. The plaintiffs called W. L. Roberts, who testified that he was a produce broker in this city, and made the sale and purchase of the flour between the parties. The following is the bought note which he sent to the plaintiffs : “ No. 274. “ New York, July 13th, 1847. “ Gent:—We have this day sold for your account, to Clark & Coleman, 1000 barrels superfine flour, whereof…
1Opinion of the CourtBy the Court. Vanderpoel, J.
We think, the variance here is fatal. The broker was the agent of both parties ; he must be deemed to have been employed by the one to buy, and by the other, to, sell; and the notes which he delivers to the parties, evidence their contract. According to the note delivered *137to the plaintiffs, the 750 barrels only were to be delivered when it arrived, not later than three days ;* whereas, according to the note delivered to the defendants, the whole quantity, a thousand barrels, was to be delivered on its arrival, not later than three days. By the latter note then, the obligation of the…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Davis v. ShieldsNew York Supreme Court · 1841
- Peltier v. CollinsNew York Supreme Court · 1830
3Cited by6 opinions
- Rochester Savings Bank v. . AverellNew York Court of Appeals · 1884
- Eggleston v. WagnerMichigan Supreme Court · 1881
- Hadden v. DandyNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1893
- Otsego County Bank v. WarrenNew York Supreme Court · 1854
- Bland v. BrookshireCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1889
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.