Pierson v. . Crooks
New York Court of Appeals
These are cross-appeals from a judgment of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered upon an order made December 31,1886, which affirmed a judgment, entered upon the report of a referee, so far as it provided for the recovery by plaintiffs, and reversed it so far as anything was allowed on defendants’ counter-claim. The nature of the action and the facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion. The agreement was executory.
Read the full summary
These are cross-appeals from a judgment of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered upon an order made December 31,1886, which affirmed a judgment, entered upon the report of a referee, so far as it provided for the recovery by plaintiffs, and reversed it so far as anything was allowed on defendants’ counter-claim. The nature of the action and the facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion. The agreement was executory. (Benjamin on Sales, §§ 3, 78,310, 311 a, 352, 357.) The phrase “immediate specification” was practically construed by the parties to…
1Opinion of the CourtAndrews, J.
The contract- was between the plaintiffs, importers and dealers in iron, in the city of Mew York, and the defendants, engaged at Liverpool,- England, in the business of buying’ and selling iron manufactured by other persons, and having an agency in the city of Mew York. The contract was in writing, entered into in the city of Mew York, for the future delivery by the defendants to the plaintiffs of two descriptions of iron, hoops and sheets, the quantity, quality and price of each description being specified. The iron was not then in existence, or, if in existence, was not identified, and it…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Pope v. AllisSupreme Court of the United States · 1885
- Brown v. . FosterNew York Court of Appeals · 1888
- Boothby v. ScalesWisconsin Supreme Court · 1871
- Coplay Iron Co. (Ltd.) v. PopeNew York Court of Appeals · 1888
- Sprague v. BlakeNew York Supreme Court · 1838
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by120 opinions
- Standard Casing Co. v. . California Casing Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1922
- Elliott v. HowisonSupreme Court of Alabama · 1906
- Barlow Manufacturing Co. v. StoneMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1908
- Oakland Sugar Mill Co. v. Fred W. Wolf Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1902
- State Board of Administration v. RoquemoreSupreme Court of Alabama · 1928
115 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.