Williams v. Littlefield
New York Supreme Court
Error from the superior court of the city of New-York. Littlefield sued Williams and Mobley, to recover the value o f 20 pieces of cotton bagging, alleged by him to have been purchased and forwarded to the defendants, and for his commission, áse.
Read the full summary
Error from the superior court of the city of New-York. Littlefield sued Williams and Mobley, to recover the value o f 20 pieces of cotton bagging, alleged by him to have been purchased and forwarded to the defendants, and for his commission, áse. In 1827, when the transaction took place, Little-field was a commission merchant in the city of New-Tork, and in that character had for several years transacted business for Williams The restriction imposed upon the delivery of the goods was unauthorized, and the goods therefore were at the risk of the plaintiff at the time of their loss. The…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court,
Sutherland, J.
The defendants contended in the court below, as they do here, that the plaintiif, as their factor, purchasing for them under their instruction, had no right to impose the conditions upon the delivery of the goods which were imposed, and that he must therefore be considered either as an agent departing from his authority, or as a vendor offering terms of sale; and that in either point of view, the goods were his and at his risk, and not at the risk of the defendants at the time of their destruction, they not having been received, nor the plaintiff’s terms accepted,…
2Cited by4 opinions
- Farmers and Mechanics' Nat. Bank v. . LoganNew York Court of Appeals · 1878
- Bryce & Rennie v. BrooksNew York Supreme Court · 1841
- Brooks v. BryceNew York Supreme Court · 1839
- Bryce & Rennie v. BrooksNew York Supreme Court · 1841