Standard Casing Co. v. . California Casing Co.
New York Court of Appeals
Appeal, by permission, from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered May 24, 1921, unanimously affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict directed by the court. If the payment and inspection clause had' been omitted, the contract would have called for delivery at San Francisco, with a right of inspection in the buyer at the place of destination.
Read the full summary
Appeal, by permission, from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered May 24, 1921, unanimously affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict directed by the court. If the payment and inspection clause had' been omitted, the contract would have called for delivery at San Francisco, with a right of inspection in the buyer at the place of destination. The place of delivery for the purpose of measuring damages is the f. o. b. place of shipment, and not the place of destination. (Woodland Lumber & Mfg. Co. v. Barnet,…
1Opinion of the CourtCardozo, J.
The plaintiff, the buyer, sues the defendant, the seller, for the breach of a contract, made in San Francisco, California, upon terms which are stated as follows in the seller’s letter of confirmation:
“ San Francisco, December 18, 1917.
“ The Standard Casing Co., Inc.,
“ 206 East 56th Street,
“ New York City, N. Y.:
“ We have this day sold you the following:
“ Twenty (20) casks of salted pig guts, each about three thousand bundles.
“ Shipment: January, February and not later than the fifteenth of March, 1918.
“ Quality: Salted pig guts, as previous shipment.
“ Price: Eighteen cents United States Gold…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Dows v. National Exchange Bank of MilwaukeeSupreme Court of the United States · 1875
- Pope v. AllisSupreme Court of the United States · 1885
- Pierson v. . CrooksNew York Court of Appeals · 1889
- United States v. R. P. Andrews & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1907
- Farmers and Mechanics' Nat. Bank v. . LoganNew York Court of Appeals · 1878
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by53 opinions
- Madeirense Do Brasil S/A v. Stulman-Emrick Lumber Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1945
- S. A. Wenger & Co. v. Propper Silk Hosiery Mills, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1924
- United States v. BalanovskiCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1956
- Union Portland Cement Co. v. State Tax CommissionUtah Supreme Court · 1946
- Henry Glass & Co. v. MisrochNew York Court of Appeals · 1925
48 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.