Hill v. . Blake
New York Court of Appeals
Appeal from judgment of the General Term of the Superior Court of the city of New York, entered upon an order made the first Monday of May, 1882, which affirmed a judgment in favor of defendants, entered upon an order nonsuiting the plaintiff on trial. . The nature of the action and the material facts are stated in the opinion. The time and mode of performance of a contract for the sale of goods, although within the statute of frauds, may be extended and modified by parol.
Read the full summary
Appeal from judgment of the General Term of the Superior Court of the city of New York, entered upon an order made the first Monday of May, 1882, which affirmed a judgment in favor of defendants, entered upon an order nonsuiting the plaintiff on trial. . The nature of the action and the material facts are stated in the opinion. The time and mode of performance of a contract for the sale of goods, although within the statute of frauds, may be extended and modified by parol. (Blanchard v. Trim, 38 N. Y. 225; Cuff v. Penn, 1 Maule & Sel. 21; Organ v. Stewart, 60 N. Y. 419; Cummings v. Arnold, 3…
1Opinion of the CourtDanforth, J.
This action was brought against the defendants for not accepting a quantity of iron. Upon the trial there was no dispute as to the facts, and at the close of the plaintiff’s case the trial judge dismissed the complaint. The General Term thought he was right in so doing, and whether he was or not is the question before us.
The complaint stated a contract in writing as hereinafter set out for the sale and delivery of certain iron, and its modification by parol, a tender of the iron, and the defendants’ refusal to accept.
The answer admitted the written contract, but put in issue the other…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Welsh v. . GosslerNew York Court of Appeals · 1882
3Cited by27 opinions
- Norrington v. WrightSupreme Court of the United States · 1885
- Littlejohn v. . ShawNew York Court of Appeals · 1899
- Bank of Montreal v. . RecknagelNew York Court of Appeals · 1888
- Olivier Straw Goods Corporation v. Osaka Shosen KaishaCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1928
- Ohio Valley Buggy Co. v. Anderson Forging Co.Indiana Supreme Court · 1907
22 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.