Parks v. . Morris Ax and Tool Co.
New York Court of Appeals
AlPpeal from a judgment of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, affirming a judgment in favor' of defendant, entered upon the report of a referee. (Reported below, 4 Lans., 106; 60 Barb., 140.) This action was brought upon two promissory notes given by defendant, in part payment for ten. tons of steel purchased by it of plaintiffs. The answer set up, as a counterclaim, a warranty as to the quality of the steel, and a breach thereof.
Read the full summary
AlPpeal from a judgment of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, affirming a judgment in favor' of defendant, entered upon the report of a referee. (Reported below, 4 Lans., 106; 60 Barb., 140.) This action was brought upon two promissory notes given by defendant, in part payment for ten. tons of steel purchased by it of plaintiffs. The answer set up, as a counterclaim, a warranty as to the quality of the steel, and a breach thereof. The contract was by letters, the substance of which is set forth in the opinion. The referee found that there was an express…
1Opinion of the Court
Johnson, C.
The contract between these parties was effected by correspondence, from which their intention is to be collected. It began by a letter from the plaintiffs, who style themselves manufacturers of all descriptions of steel, addressed to the defendant, The Morris Ax and Tool Co. The plaintiffs say: “ In the hope of opening a trade with you, we quote you ten tons of best ax cast-steel, which we will warrant equal in quality to any brand of English steel, at seventeen and a half cents per pound, net cash here. We hope you may be induced to give this proposition your careful…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Passinger v. . ThorburnNew York Court of Appeals · 1866
- Muller v. . EnoNew York Court of Appeals · 1856
- Messmore v. New York Shot & Lead Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1869
- Day v. . PoolNew York Court of Appeals · 1873
- Leonard v. New York, Albany & Buffalo Electro Magnetic Telegraph Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1870
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by21 opinions
- Booth v. . Spuyten Duyvil Rolling Mill Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1875
- Brigg v. . HiltonNew York Court of Appeals · 1885
- Leavitt v. Fiberloid Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1907
- Fairbank Canning Co. v. . MetzgerNew York Court of Appeals · 1890
- Hooper v. . StoryNew York Court of Appeals · 1898
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.