Parker v. Schenck & Rutherford
New York Supreme Court
THIS adtion was brought to recover the sum of $313.75, the price ilgteed to be paid by the defendants for a double acting putiip, of Earfiham's patent, to be made by the plaintiffs, for the defendants.
Read the full summary
THIS adtion was brought to recover the sum of $313.75, the price ilgteed to be paid by the defendants for a double acting putiip, of Earfiham's patent, to be made by the plaintiffs, for the defendants. The complaint alleged the making of the contract—which was not in writing—between the agent of the defendants and the plaintiffs; the manufacture of the pump agreeably to the terms of the contract, and the tender thereof to the defendants, and their refusal to accept or pay for the same. By their answer, the defendants denied the making of the contract sued on, and alleged that the only…
1Opinion of the CourtIngraham, J.
The facts proven in this case were, that the defendants wanted a pump; and on examining those in possession of the plaintiffs the defendants were not satisfied with them. They wanted one made of brass, with some alterations varying it from those of the plaintiffs. They inquired as to the cost, and were informed of a gross sum as the cost of a part of the pump, and that the brass would be charged for by the pohnd, over and above the cost if made of iron. An order *40was finally given, to have the pump made. The defense is, the want of a written contract, under the statute of frauds:
The present…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Crookshank v. BurrellNew York Supreme Court · 1820
- Downs & Skillinger v. RossNew York Supreme Court · 1840
3Cited by9 opinions
- Cooke v. . MillardNew York Court of Appeals · 1875
- Meincke v. FalkWisconsin Supreme Court · 1882
- Passaic Manufacturing Co. v. HoffmanNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1871
- Stephens v. SanteeNew York Supreme Court · 1868
- Moore v. Camden Marble & Granite WorksSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1906
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.