Andrews v. Kneeland
New York Supreme Court
Assumpsit on a warranty, that certain cotton, sold by the defendant to the plaintiff, should be of like goodness and \ ° ' quality with certain samples exhibited ; tried at the New-York circuit, January 1th, 1824, before Edwards, C. Judge.
Read the full summary
Assumpsit on a warranty, that certain cotton, sold by the defendant to the plaintiff, should be of like goodness and \ ° ' quality with certain samples exhibited ; tried at the New-York circuit, January 1th, 1824, before Edwards, C. Judge. At the trial, it was proved that the plaintiff, who was a mercjjan|- residing in Boston, on the 20th of September, 1821, purchased of Smidt, the defendant’s broker, 124 ' ^ * square bales of cotton, by sample; the defendant and the residing in the city of New-York. where the sale ° J ? took place. That the defendant consummated the sale by taking a note, in…
1Opinion of the Court
Curia, per
Savage, Ch. J.
The sale in this case was clearly a sale by sample. There could be no other, according to the weight of the testimony. That, however, is a question of fact.
It has been deliberately settled by this court, in the case of The Oneida Manuf. So. v. Lawrence, (4 Cowen, 440,) that in case of sale by sample, the vendor is responsible, that the bulk of the commodity shall be equal in quality to the sample.
It is only necessary to inquire whether the judge correctly charged the jury as to the power of the agent.
The difference between a general and a special agent is well…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- The Monte AllegreSupreme Court of the United States · 1824
- Batty v. CarswellNew York Supreme Court · 1806
- Nixon v. HyserottNew York Supreme Court · 1809
3Cited by14 opinions
- Borrekins v. Bevan & PorterSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1831
- Seixas v. WoodsNew York Supreme Court · 1804
- Magee v. BillingsleySupreme Court of Alabama · 1842
- Ahern v. . GoodspeedNew York Court of Appeals · 1878
- Fitch v. HowittOregon Supreme Court · 1898
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.