Robertson v. Vaughn
The Superior Court of New York City
This was an. action of trespass on the case to recover for the non-delivery of one thousand molasses shocks and heads, under a contract between the plaintiffs and the defendants. The cause was tried before the Honorable Elisha P. Hurlbut, one of the justices of the Supreme Court, without a jury, on the 13th day of July, 1848, by agreement of parties.
Read the full summary
This was an. action of trespass on the case to recover for the non-delivery of one thousand molasses shocks and heads, under a contract between the plaintiffs and the defendants. The cause was tried before the Honorable Elisha P. Hurlbut, one of the justices of the Supreme Court, without a jury, on the 13th day of July, 1848, by agreement of parties. On the trial the plaintiffs' counsel called as a witness, Robert A. Weydale, who being sworn, testified: I know the plaintiffs in this suit, know one of the defendants, think Mr. E. S. Yaughn. I am the plaintiffs’ book-keeper. Mr. Yaughn was at…
1Opinion of the Court
Br the Coübt.
Dueb, J.
We certainly think that this case is within the mischief that the statute of frauds was designed to prevent, and that the contract between the parties was substantially a contract for the sale of goods and merchandise, and not for work and labor ; but we cannot shut our eyes to the fact, that the case of Sewell v. Fitch (8 Cowen 215), as the counsel for the defendant found himself under the necessity of admitting, is not distinguishable from the present; and that no conflicting decisions are to be found in our own Reports. The contract, which the Supreme Court, in that…
2Cited by10 opinions
- Goddard v. BinneyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1874
- Meincke v. FalkWisconsin Supreme Court · 1882
- Passaic Manufacturing Co. v. HoffmanNew York Court of Common Pleas · 1871
- Marie v. GarrisonThe Superior Court of New York City · 1883
- Roubicek & Zobel v. HaddadSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1902
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.