De Ridder v. M'Knight
New York Supreme Court
IN ERROR to the court of common pleas of the county of Washington. The plaintiff in error, who was also plaintiff in the court below, brought an action of assumpsit against the defendant to recover the price of a set of grist-mill stones.
Read the full summary
IN ERROR to the court of common pleas of the county of Washington. The plaintiff in error, who was also plaintiff in the court below, brought an action of assumpsit against the defendant to recover the price of a set of grist-mill stones. On the trial in the court below, one Barber testified, that, on the sale of a farm by the plaintiff to the defendant, the defendant applied to the plaintiff for the purchase of a set of grist-mill stones, which it was understood did not pass with the 1 and; that the plaintiff informed the defendant that he had bargained with one Tifft for the sale of the…
1Opinion of the CourtVan Ness, J.
Whether the bargain between the parties for the sale of the mill stones was completed, or whether it was only in fieri, was a question of fact which ought to have been submitted to the jury for their decision. The evidence that the negotiation had been closed, and that the defendant had agreed to purchase, is pretty strong, and the jury would have been warranted to have found for the plaintiff. The greatest difficulty in the case is, whether it appears sufficiently that the plaintiff had procured a relinquishment from Tifft, who had previously agreed to purchase the mill stones. From the…
2Cited by9 opinions
- McClung v. KelleySupreme Court of Iowa · 1866
- Orton v. NoonanWisconsin Supreme Court · 1870
- Bamman v. BinzenNew York Supreme Court · 1892
- Baurman v. BinzenNew York Supreme Court · 1891
- Muhlenbrinck v. PoolerNew York Supreme Court · 1886
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.