Case Name: John B. Slauson, Respondent, v. The Albany Railway Company, Appellant
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1875-02-09
Citations: 60 N.Y. 606
Docket Number: 
Parties: John B. Slauson, Respondent, v. The Albany Railway Company, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 60
Pages: 606–607

Head Matter:
John B. Slauson, Respondent, v. The Albany Railway Company, Appellant.
(Argued January 25, 1875 ;
decided February 9, 1875.)
This action was brought to recover for certain patent fare boxes alleged to have been sold and delivered by plaintiff to defendant. Plaintiff contracted to furnish and defendant to take fare boxes and accompaniments for all the cars on the roads of the latter, to use for one year, and at the expiration of this time to pay $165 for each car, with interest, -or to return the boxes and pay" nothing; the year to commence when the boxes were put in all the cars. The defendant agreed to certain regulations prescribed by plaintiffs as to the use of the boxes. The contract was closed in February, 1869. In March, defendant ordered and received four fare boxes, and accompaniments, and in April three more. It ordered no others to supply its other cars within a reasonable time, and failed to comply with the regulations as to the use of those received. Over a year after the boxes were furnished, plaintiff refused to furnish any more. Defendant did not, at the expiration of the year, offer to return the boxes furnished, but did so in the fall of 1870, which offer was declined. Held, that the contract required that all the boxes should be ordered within a reasonable time; that it was not a condition to a right to recover, that all the boxes should be delivered or tendered, or that plaintiff should give notice requiring the order to be made in a specified time; that the failure to order within a reasonable time, and the violation of the conditions in respect to the boxes delivered, furnished plaintiff a legal reason for refusing to furnish more after the expiration of the year, and also for refusing to take back those furnished, and rendered the defendant liable to pay therefor at the contract-price.
Matthew Hale for the appellant.
Grenville Tremain for the respondent.

Opinion:
Church, Ch. J.,
reads for affirmance.
All concur; Rapallo, J., because of defendant's failure to comply with the regulations; Miller, J., not sitting.
Judgment affirmed.