Champlin v. Rowley
New York Supreme Court
[188] [189] Error from the supreme' court. Champlin sued Rowley in an action of assumpsit, and declared on the common counts for goods and chattels and hay sold and delivered.
Read the full summary
[188] [189] Error from the supreme' court. Champlin sued Rowley in an action of assumpsit, and declared on the common counts for goods and chattels and hay sold and delivered. On the trial of the cause, it appeared that on 12th September, 1831, a contract was entered into by the parties, whereby the plaintiff agreed to deliver to the defendant, at a certain dock in Rhinebeck, in Dutchess county, 100 tons of hay, and as much more beyond that quantity as he had to spare, to be delivered pressed, between the day of the date of the contract and the last run of the sloops navigating the river ;…
1Opinion of the Court
After advisement, the following opinion was delivered:
By the Chancellor.
[192] [193] This is an action to recover compensation for the value of hay delivered in part performance of a contract to deliver a larger quantity, and to be paid for when the whole was delivered. From the facts stated in the special verdict, there is no doubt that the non-performance of the contract in full, has never been waived by any act of the defendant; and it is also very probable, *104from the facts stated in the special verdict, that he must have sustained considerable damage by the non-delivery of the residue of…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Tompkins v. ElliotNew York Supreme Court · 1830
- Woodworth v. CurtissNew York Supreme Court · 1831
3Cited by8 opinions
- People v. FrankCalifornia Supreme Court · 1865
- Birckhead v. BrownThe Superior Court of New York City · 1851
- McDonald v. Bear River & Auburn Water & Mining Co.California Supreme Court · 1860
- Gas-Light Co. v. Rome, W. & O. RailroadNew York Supreme Court · 1889
- Niblo v. Post's administratorsNew York Supreme Court · 1840
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.