Collerd v. Tully
Supreme Court of New Jersey
On appeal from a decree of the court of chancery advised by Vice-Chancellor Garrison, whose opinion is reported in 77 N. J. Eq. (7 Buch.) 439.
1Opinion of the Court
*558The opinion of the court was delivered by
SWAYZE, J.
We agree with the result reached by the vice-chancellor, and with the essential portion of his reasons. His opinion, however, contains some inadvertent expressions which call for remark. He says, in discussing the question whether the horses sold by Brown to Tully were upon a conditional sale: “Some of the horses died after they were delivered to Tully, but this fact was ignored by Brown in his account. He did not, by reason thereof, lessen his claim against Tully as he undoubtedly would have and must have done if the sales were conditional…
2Cited by18 opinions
- Wilentz v. HendricksonNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1943
- Gottman v. Jeffrey-Nichols Co.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1929
- Bankers Trust Co. v. MaxsonNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1926
- Wisner Mfg. Co. v. Second National, C., Co.New Jersey Court of Chancery · 1932
- Lion Shoe Co. v. PriceNew Jersey Court of Chancery · 1931
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.