Brooks v. Bryce
New York Supreme Court
Error from the superior court of the city of New-York. This was an action of trover, for fourteen rollers for printing calicoes, brought by Bryce & Rennie against Brooks. In the autumn of 1833, Brooks, at the request, i;t seems, of Bryce & Rennie, sent two distinct orders to a correspondent in Manchester, England, to have a quantity of rollers prepared and engraved1 and forwarded to him in New-York, with all possible dispatch.
Read the full summary
Error from the superior court of the city of New-York. This was an action of trover, for fourteen rollers for printing calicoes, brought by Bryce & Rennie against Brooks. In the autumn of 1833, Brooks, at the request, i;t seems, of Bryce & Rennie, sent two distinct orders to a correspondent in Manchester, England, to have a quantity of rollers prepared and engraved1 and forwarded to him in New-York, with all possible dispatch. The orders were received, duly attended to, and the rollers shipped for New-York. The first parcel, consisting of the fourteen rollers for which the action was brought,…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
Cowen, J.
In considering this case, I shall assume that the rollers secondly ordered had arrived, and were actually in the hands of the defendant, when the plaintiffs made the demand of the rollers in question. They do not pretend that any available demand could be made till they had given the bill of March 11th ; and the testimony is conflicting, and if the fact were material, it should, therefore, have been left to the jury, whether the rollers secondly ordered had so arrived. Indeed, the counsel for the plaintiffs below did not deny on the argument, that the fact must be taken…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Williams v. LittlefieldNew York Supreme Court · 1834
3Cited by1 opinion
- Whitman v. HortonThe Superior Court of New York City · 1880