Legal Opinion

Dustan v. . McAndrew

New York Court of Appeals

Decided December 28, 1870PublishedCited by 97 opinions

Appeal from an order of the General Term of the Superior Court of the city of Yew York, made upon exceptions therein heard in the first instance, directing judgment for the plaintiff upon a verdict rendered at a trial'term of that court.

Read the full summary

Appeal from an order of the General Term of the Superior Court of the city of Yew York, made upon exceptions therein heard in the first instance, directing judgment for the plaintiff upon a verdict rendered at a trial'term of that court. On the 24th of August, 1860, J. S. & W. Brown, of the city of Yew York, executed an agreement with the plaintiff to sell him 100,000 pounds of hops, as follows: “ In consideration of the sum of one dollar, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, we have sold this day to Mr. John F. Dustan, of this city, 100,000 pounds of first sort western or eastern…

1Opinion of the Court

Earl, C.

The contract required that the hops should be inspected by J. S. Brown, or some other inspector satisfactory to both parties. In case J. S. Brown could not, or should not inspect them for any reason, then they were to be inspected by some other person mutually satisfactory. 27either party had the right to demand any other inspector, unless Brown neglected or refused to inspect. It is doubtless unusual to insert a stipulation in contracts, that the vendor shall inspect the goods sold. But where parties agree to this, they must be bound by their contract, and it must be construed the…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Pollen v. . Le RoyNew York Court of Appeals · 1864
  2. McMahon v. . the New York and Erie Railroad CompanyNew York Court of Appeals · 1859
  3. Lewis v. GreiderNew York Supreme Court · 1867

3Cited by97 opinions

  1. Maurice O'Meara Co. v. National Park BankNew York Court of Appeals · 1925
  2. Cahen v. . PlattNew York Court of Appeals · 1877
  3. Moore v. . PotterNew York Court of Appeals · 1898
  4. Hayden v. . DemetsNew York Court of Appeals · 1873
  5. California Sugar & White Pine Agency v. PenoyarCalifornia Supreme Court · 1914

92 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API