Bidwell v. Overton
New York Court of Common Pleas
Appeal from city court, general term. Action by Charles B. Bidwell and James M. French against John B. Over-ton. for refusal to accept and pay for goods pursuant to a contract of purchase.
Read the full summary
Appeal from city court, general term. Action by Charles B. Bidwell and James M. French against John B. Over-ton. for refusal to accept and pay for goods pursuant to a contract of purchase. The sale in question was of a parcel of pepper, “to be shipped June-August, 1889, by steamer from Straits, direct or via Europe for this port, ” and to contain “dust not over three per cent. ” Defendant appeals from a judgment ■of the general term of the city court affirming a judgment of that court for plaintiffs, entered on the verdict of a jury.
1Opinion of the CourtPryor, J.
As to the law of the case, there is no controversy between the parties; but it is agreed that to entitle plaintiffs to a recovery it was necessary for them to show that the pepper was shipped when and in the mode required by the contract, and that it was not adulterated by more than 3 per cent, of •dust. These were the only questions of fact litigated on the trial; and we are of opinion that the evidence was sufficient to make a prima facie case for the plaintiffs, as to the quality of the pepper, and therefore that the verdict in their favor is conclusive upon that issue.
But in respect to…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Bennett v. . Leeds Manufacturing Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1888
- Hill v. . BlakeNew York Court of Appeals · 1884
- Welsh v. . GosslerNew York Court of Appeals · 1882
- Cunningham v. . JudsonNew York Court of Appeals · 1885
- Pfaudler Process Fermentation Co. v. McPhersonNew York Supreme Court · 1889
3Cited by3 opinions
- Iasigi v. RosensteinNew York Supreme Court · 1892
- Cohen v. WolffAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York · 1915
- London Produce Co. v. Poels & Brewster, Inc.New York Supreme Court · 1925