Opinion

Brooklyn Oil Refinery v. Brown

  • 42 How. Pr. 286
Court
The Superior Court of New York City
Filed
Nov 15, 1871
Status
Published
Author
Freedman
On the bench
Freedman
Cited by
0 cases

The opinion

Ry the court, Freedman, J.

Under the terms of the contract payment and delivery were to be simultaneous and concurrent acts, and plaintiff, therefore, although not bound to prove payment or tender of payment, was at least bound to establish that he was ready and willing to pay according to the provisions of the contract. Upon this point considerable evidence was given both ways, and sufficient thereof on each side to support a determination of the fact involved therein, in favor of ether party. It consequently raised a clear issue of facts and defendants had a right to ask its submission to the jury. As they did make such request, its refusal constituted error, for which a new trial must be granted, *288 irrespective of the other interesting questions which arose in the course of the trial, and were argued upon the appeal. This' view renders it quite unnecessary, therefore, to notice any of the latter.

The judgment should be reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to appellants, to abide the event.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.