Northern Grain Co. v. Wiffler
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Submission of a controversy upon an agreed statement of facts, pursuant to section 1279 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
1Dissent
Hotchkiss, J. (dissenting):
I think there should be judgment for the plaintiff. The plaintiff’s seller’s lien was lost when the oats were delivered to *98the railroad company (Rummell v. Blanchard, 167 App. Div. 654), but its right to stop continued so long as the goods were in transit. Although by accepting the draft Wiffler may have waived the right to examine the goods (Pers. Prop. Law [Consol. Laws, chap. 41; Laws of 1909, chap. 45], § 128, subd. 3, added by Laws of 1911, chap. 571), plaintiff’s right to stop them was not affected by Wiffler’s obtaining possession, for he subsequently…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Harris v. . PrattNew York Court of Appeals · 1858
- O'brien v. Norris, Caldwell & Co.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1860
- Babcock v. . BonnellNew York Court of Appeals · 1880
- Rucker v. FeiferlichSupreme Court of Kansas · 1874
- Hause v. JudsonCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1836
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.