Legal Opinion
Cundill v. A. W. Millhauser Corp.
New York Court of Appeals
Decided November 17, 1931PublishedCited by 9 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtHubbs, J.
This is an action to recover the purchase price of twenty-five tons of antimony. The action is under subdivision 1 of section 144 of the Personal Property Law (Cons. Laws, ch. 41), which reads: “ Where, under a contract to sell or a sale, the property in the goods has passed to the buyer, and the buyer wrongfully neglects or refuses to pay for the goods according to the terms of the contract or the sale, the seller may maintain an action against him for the price of the goods.”
The theory of the respondent is that the title of the property passed when the antimony was placed on board ship at…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Harrison v. FortlageSupreme Court of the United States · 1896
- Seaver v. . Lindsay Light Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1922
- Henry Glass & Co. v. MisrochNew York Court of Appeals · 1925
- Dwane v. WeilAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1922
- Dwane v. . WeilNew York Court of Appeals · 1923
3Cited by9 opinions
- Madeirense Do Brasil S/A v. Stulman-Emrick Lumber Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1945
- Badhwar v. Colorado Fuel and Iron CorporationDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1955
- Ronrico Corp. v. CommissionerUnited States Board of Tax Appeals · 1941
- Matter of People (Lawyers Westchester M. T. Co.)New York Court of Appeals · 1942
- Warner Bros. & Co. v. IsraelCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1939
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.