Outwater v. Nelson
New York Supreme Court
ERROR to the Dutchess common pleas. The action was commenced before a justice of the peace, in April, 1843. The plaintiff claimed to recover upon two receipts, one of which was as follows: “ February1.22,1839. Received in store, Red Hook Landing, of Samuel- Nelson, by self, 50f£ bus. corn on freight. James Outwater.” The other receipt was in the same terms, and was for 27 f6 bushels corn.
Read the full summary
ERROR to the Dutchess common pleas. The action was commenced before a justice of the peace, in April, 1843. The plaintiff claimed to recover upon two receipts, one of which was as follows: “ February1.22,1839. Received in store, Red Hook Landing, of Samuel- Nelson, by self, 50f£ bus. corn on freight. James Outwater.” The other receipt was in the same terms, and was for 27 f6 bushels corn. The declaration alleged that in consideration that the plaintiff,. ISTelson, had sent and consigned to the defendant, Outwater, corn, &c. the defendant undertook and promised the plaintiff to sell the same…
1Opinion of the Court
By the Court, Harris, J.
Every contract may reasonably be presumed to be made with reference to the existing state of things. Hence it is said, that “ the usage or habit of trade or the conduct of an individual, which is known to the person who deals with him, may be given in evidence, to prove what was the contract between them.” (2 Greenl. Ev. § 251.) It appears from the receipts given in evidence that the corn delivered by Nelson to Outwater was not sold, but was delivered “on freight.” What did the parties intend by this 1 It has already been held, in reference to these very words, that…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Clarke v. Hall & Ducey Lumber Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1889
- Carter v. Philadelphia Coal Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1875