Vietor v. Stroock
City of New York Municipal Court
Appeal from trial term. The action is brought by George F. Yietor and others against Louis F Strooek, for goods sold and delivered. The answer is a general denial. Plaintiffs’ witnesses testified substantiallythat in March, 1880, upon invitation, the defendant, Samuel Stroock, (now deceased,) called at plaintiffs’ place of business in New York city, and partially examined certain goods, called “Chinchillas,” contained in 10 eases.
Read the full summary
Appeal from trial term. The action is brought by George F. Yietor and others against Louis F Strooek, for goods sold and delivered. The answer is a general denial. Plaintiffs’ witnesses testified substantiallythat in March, 1880, upon invitation, the defendant, Samuel Stroock, (now deceased,) called at plaintiffs’ place of business in New York city, and partially examined certain goods, called “Chinchillas,” contained in 10 eases. He subsequently called again, in company witli a Mr. Strauss, his book-keeper, and he was requested to examine all or as many of the goods as he desired, all the…
1Opinion of the Court
Nehrbas, J
In considering the reasons for the enactment of the statute of frauds, it seems to us that one of the main objects to be accomplished was to do away with the making of contracts by mere word of mouth. Language, however strong, could not form the basis of a legal agreement Some act was required to be done by a purchaser before he could be bound; so that an acceptance and a reception of goods by him would be valid, not by reason of any verbal statements he might make, but by some action taken by him or on his behalf. This principle was laid down in Shindler v Houston, 1 N Y. 261, and…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Cross v. . O'DonnellNew York Court of Appeals · 1871
- Grey v. CaryNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1880