Husted v. . Craig
New York Court of Appeals
The plaintiffs, carpet dealers, sold and delivered to defendant certain oil-cloths and carpets for his house in Peebskill, and put them down. The defendant, in his answer, set up that they were put down "in an unskillful, unworkmanlike manner, and did not fit the rooms, and, therefore, he refused to keep them and sent them back. On the trial there was considerable evidence given on both sides.
Read the full summary
The plaintiffs, carpet dealers, sold and delivered to defendant certain oil-cloths and carpets for his house in Peebskill, and put them down. The defendant, in his answer, set up that they were put down "in an unskillful, unworkmanlike manner, and did not fit the rooms, and, therefore, he refused to keep them and sent them back. On the trial there was considerable evidence given on both sides. The plaintiffs offered evidence tending to show that, the carpets were put down in the usual manner, and defendant offered evidence tending to prove the contrary. In regard to one of the carpets,…
1Opinion of the CourtBockes, J.
The jury were at liberty to find, from the evidence, that the contract was entire, to furnish and put down the carpets and oil-cloth in the defendant’s house at Peeks-kill for the price agreed on.
Such contract would carry with it the tacit condition imposed by law, that the articles selected should be put down in a proper manner. The condition, conceding the contract to have been as above stated, was a very important one, for the value of the property to he delivered depended, in a great degree, on its due execution. The question is, whether there was evidence from which the jury could have…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Baker v. . HigginsNew York Court of Appeals · 1860
3Cited by12 opinions
- McDonald v. Kansas City Bolt & Nut Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1906
- Newton v. Bayless Fruit Co.Court of Appeals of Kentucky · 1913
- Brown v. NortonNew York Supreme Court · 1888
- Campbell Printing Press & Manufacturing Co. v. MarshSupreme Court of Colorado · 1894
- Meade v. St. Louis Mutual Life InsuranceNew York Supreme Court · 1875
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.