Case Name: WILLIAM B. HOLLISTER, Respondent, v. JACOB L. ENGLEHART and others, Appellants
Court: New York Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1877-07
Citations: 18 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 446
Docket Number: 
Parties: WILLIAM B. HOLLISTER, Respondent, v. JACOB L. ENGLEHART and others, Appellants.
Judges: Daniels, J., concurred.
Reporter: Supreme Court Reports (Hun)
Volume: 18
Pages: 446–450

Head Matter:
WILLIAM B. HOLLISTER, Respondent, v. JACOB L. ENGLEHART and others, Appellants.
Recovery — must be on cause of action set forth in the complaint.
In this action, brought to recover the price oí high wines sold and delivered to the defendants, one defense was, that the wines were sold to be redistilled, the profits arising therefrom to be divided between plaintiff and defendants, and that while in the latter’s possession they were destroyed by firo. Upon the trial, evidence was given, without objection, tending to prove that insurance companies had paid to the defendant losses upon a portion of the said wines, and that he had promised to pay plaintiff- therefor as soon as he received his claims from the companies. In an answer to a question by a juror, the court charged that, if they believed that the defendants had made such a promise, and received the money, plaintiff was entitled to recover.
Held, that the charge was erroneous, as it allowed the plaintiff to recover upon an entirely different cause of action from that set forth in the complaint.
Arnold v. Angelí (62 FT. Y., 510) followed.
Appeal from a judgment in favor of tbe plaintiff, entered upon tbe verdict of a jury, and from an order denying amotion for a new trial made upon tbe minutes of tbe justice before wbom tbe action was tried.
Tbe complaint alleged a sale and delivery of liigb wines by tbe plaintiff to tbe defendants, of tbe value of $3,848.32; tbat a payment of $400 on account was made tbe day of tbe sale, leaving a balance of $3,448.32 due, for wbicb, with interest, tbe plaintiff demanded judgment.
Tbe answer denied all tbe allegations of tbe complaint, and set up tbat they bad received tbe goods to rectify and distill into alcohol, under an agreement tbat, when so distilled, tbe alcohol should be sold and tbe profit shared between tbe plaintiff and tbe defendants ; tbat afterwards, and before any sale bad been effected, the distillery of tbe defendants was burnt up, without their fault, and tbe goods wholly destroyed.
Tbe case was tried before Judge Lawrence and a jury. There was conflicting evidence upon tbe question whether tbe transaction between tbe parties was a sale or an arrangement by wbicb, after distillation, tbe goods were to be sold by tbe defendants for joint account. Evidence was given tending to show tbat defendants bad promised to pay tbe plaintiff as soon as they arranged with tbe insur an.ce companies; and that they had received from the companies payment for a portion of the high wines so destroyed.
Albert Cardoso, for the appellants.
Edww, Blcmkman, for the respondent.

Opinion:
Brady, J.:
This is an action to recover for goods sold and delivered, and was tried as such on the plaintiff's complaint and evidence. The promise of payment to which the plaintiff testified, was made, as he shows, in that connection.
The defendants, however, by answer and proof, insisted that the wines alleged to have been sold were delivered to them for reclistillation, on shares, and that the profits subsequently accruing upon their sale were to be divided.
The learned justice charged, on this defense, that if the wines were delivered upon this understanding they were at the risk of the plaintiff and he could not recover their value in this action.
He also charged that if there was not an absolute sale of the wines, the defendants were entitled to a verdict.
The question which the juror asked namely: " While we might believe it was a copartnership arrangement in regard to the sale, and not an absolute sale, yet, if the defendants received a certain amount from the insurance company for this loss, is the plaintiff entitled to the amount that they received," and the answer given by the court as follows: " If they promised, as he says they did, that if they should receive the claim from the insurance company, they would pay Hollister, he is entitled to that," was inconsistent with the views previously expressed and changed the entire cause of action. This could not be done. The court of last resort has so declared. (Arnold v. Angell, 62 N. Y., 510.)
The promise of the defendants, it may be further said, was not predicated of any partnership result or joint profit or interest, but of the alleged sale and founded npon the receipts of indemnity for the loss of the goods by fire, from the insurance company, and which wotdd put the defendants in funds to pay for them. Whether under a proper form of action the plaintiff might not recover in whole or in part, it is not necessary to declare.
He has put himself on the record, as an absolute vendor, and must stand or fall in this action on that basis. I think the judgment should be reversed.
Daniels, J., concurred.