Legal Opinion
Booth v. . Spuyten Duyvil Rolling Mill Co.
New York Court of Appeals
Decided April 27, 1875PublishedCited by 95 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] The point made, that the destruction of the mill by fire was an excuse for the non-performance of the contract by the defendant, is not tenable. In the first place, it does not appear, nor is it found as a fact, that the burning of the mill prevented such performance. The contract was made December twenty-seventh, and the steel caps were to be delivered on the first of April thereafter. The mill burned on the tenth of March; and the proper construction of the…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Griffin v. . ColverNew York Court of Appeals · 1858
- Dexter v. . NortonNew York Court of Appeals · 1871
- School District No. 1 v. DauchySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1857
- Parks v. . Morris Ax and Tool Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1874
3Cited by95 opinions
- Kenford Co. v. County of ErieNew York Court of Appeals · 1989
- Western Union Telegraph Co. v. HallSupreme Court of the United States · 1888
- Skagit Railway & Lumber Co. v. ColeWashington Supreme Court · 1891
- Daughtery v. American Union Telegraph Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1883
- Guetzkow Bros. v. A. H. Andrews & Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1896
90 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.