Legal Opinion
Flint v. Corbitt
New York Court of Common Pleas
Decided April 3, 1876PublishedCited by 3 opinions
Appeal from a judgment.
1Opinion of the Court
Chables P. Daly, Chief Justice.
The agreement, upon the plaintiff’s own showing, was for a sale of goods, and not a contract for work and labor, and is therefore within the statute of frauds. Where the understanding of the parties at the time of the agreement is that the article is to be produced in whole, or in a material degree, by work and labor, it may be regarded as a contract for work and labor (Passaic Manuf. Co. v. Hoffman, 3 Daly, 495; Mead v. Case, 33 Barb. 202), but if the thing contracted for is then in existence, but something remains to be done to finish it, or put it in the…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Downs & Skillinger v. RossNew York Supreme Court · 1840
- Atwater v. HoughSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1861
- Passaic Manufacturing Co. v. HoffmanNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1871
- Mead v. CaseNew York Supreme Court · 1860
- Smith v. N. Y. Central R. R.New York Court of Appeals · 1868
3Cited by3 opinions
- Bennett v. DavisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1896
- Alfred Shrimpton & Sons, Ltd. v. DworskyNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1892
- Orman v. HagerNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1886