Case ID: ny-st-rep_32/html/0915-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Pratt, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Lewis J. Bazzoni, Resp’t, v. Frances M. Woodward, App’lt.
    
      (Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department
    
    
      Filed July 18, 1890.)
    
    1. Sale — Acceptance.
    Defendant purchased a carriage of plaintiff. One was shown to her which she said was just what she wanted, and she then directed certain alterations to be made and the carriage shipped to her. Held, a sufficient acceptance to take the sale out of thestatute of frauds.
    2. Same — Delivery.
    The carriage was delivered to the steamship line directed by defendant and was afterward seen in the possession of her counsel. Held, that a delivery was thereby proved.
    Appeal from judgment of county court in favor of plaintiff on a new trial upon appeal from justice’s judgment.
    Action to recover the purchase price of a carriage sold to defendant.
    In October, 1887, the appellant came to the carriage manufactory of the respondent, at ¡Newburgh, Hew York, looked at a book of “ cuts,” and ordered a carriage by the book. Respondent sent to Hew Haven for the carriage ordered, which was sent him slightly improved from the picture shown to appellant. After it came to respondent’s shop, appellant came there, respondent had his workman run the carriage out near where she was sitting in her carriage, she looked it over, said “it was just the article she wanted, and she would take it.” The price was agreed on at $150. She ordered the steps to be padded, and directed respondent to deliver it to Mallory Line of steamers in Hew York, directed to her in Maitland, Florida. He was to pay the freight to Hew York city only. The extra expense of padding and crating for shipment was $17.75. Respondent delivered it to Mallory Line of steamers, which run to the south, and soon after received from appellant a letter in which she admitted that she had seen the wagon on the sidewalk, and approved of it, but claimed she had never received that wagon. Respondent proved, in addition to the delivery of the wagon to the Mallory Line of steamers, that afterwards he saw the wagon in the court room, in September, 1888, in possession of counsel for appellant, when this case was partly tried; that it was wrapped about with Florida newspapers, and' had none on when he shipped it, thus proving its receipt by appellant, and the additional fact that it had been in her possession for a year, and that she had brought it from Florida to .¡Newburgh. The additional fact was shown that it was in possession of her counsel at the time of trial in county court, September, 1889.
    
      John Miller, for app’lt; Wm. D. Dickey, for resp’t.
   Pratt, J.

The testimony was sufficient to authorize the jury to find that the carriage was accepted when defendant saw it at ¡Newburgh. Directing alterations to be made did not necessarily disprove acceptance. On the contrary, the jury might well consider it to be further evidence in that direction.

The delivery in pursuance to defendant’s direction was also proved.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Barnard, P. J., and Dykman, J., concur.