Crossman v. . Lurman
New York Court of Appeals
Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered February 13, 1901, affirming a judgment in favor of defendants entered upon a verdict and an order denying a motion for a new trial. The nature of the action and the facts, so far as material, are stated in the opinion.
Read the full summary
Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered February 13, 1901, affirming a judgment in favor of defendants entered upon a verdict and an order denying a motion for a new trial. The nature of the action and the facts, so far as material, are stated in the opinion. The learned court erred in denying the motion to direct a verdict upon the ground that the statute of this state, so far as it affected imported coffees, was unconstitutional. (Brown v. State, 25 U. S. 419 ; Bowman v. C. & N. W. Ry. Co., 125 U. S. 465; Leisy v.…
1Opinion of the CourtHaight, J.
This action was brought to recover the damages sustained by the plaintiffs by reason of the refusal of the defendants to accept certain coffees tendered to them under an executory contract dated July 7, 1894.
The contract, so far as is material upon the question which we shall discuss, is as follows ; “ Sold for account of Messrs. W. H. Crossman & Bro. to Messrs. Theo. Gr. Lurman & Co., Baltimore, Md., about 250 Ho. 8, 250 Ho. 9. Five hundred (500) bags Bio coffee (sound and made sound portion), to be shipped at Bio de Janiero by str. Catania.” The contract contains other provisions with…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Leisy v. HardinSupreme Court of the United States · 1890
- Powell v. PennsylvaniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1888
- Railroad Co. v. HusenSupreme Court of the United States · 1878
- Bowman v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1888
- Thorpe v. Rutland & Burlington RailroadSupreme Court of Vermont · 1854
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Crossman v. LurmanSupreme Court of the United States · 1904
- State v. Armour & Co.North Dakota Supreme Court · 1913
- Ensign v. New York Life InsuranceAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1923
- People v. . SchmidtNew York Court of Appeals · 1916
- People v. A. Booth & Co.New York Supreme Court · 1903
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.