Case Name: Gilbert Durant, Respondent, v. Nathaniel H. Allen, Appellant
Court: New York Commission of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1875-05
Citations: 65 N.Y. 562
Docket Number: 
Parties: Gilbert Durant, Respondent, v. Nathaniel H. Allen, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 65
Pages: 562–563

Head Matter:
Gilbert Durant, Respondent, v. Nathaniel H. Allen, Appellant.
(Submitted January 17, 1875;
decided May term, 1875.)
This was an action to recover the value of property alleged to have been sold by defendant to plaintiff, but which the former refused to deliver.
Defendant executed and delivered to plaintiff a bill of sale of the produce upon a farm sold and conveyed at the same time by him to plaintiff, and also “ all the personal property and effects ” named in a schedule annexed. The schedule, after naming a variety of live stock and farming implements, contained this clause: “Also all other personal property of every name and kind whatsoever on the Allen farm above referred to, and this day conveyed to Gilbert Durant by N. H. Allen and wife, including two full beds in good order and the bedding of the same, consisting of, for each bed, two pillows, two sheets, two blankets, one straw bed, one feather bed, and the bedstead for each bed, hereby intending to sell and convey to said Durant all the personal property and effects on said farm, except the household furniture and furnishings of all kinds in the house, aside from the two beds and bedsteads before mentioned.”
The property in question consisted of a rifle, a gun and a pistol, and were in the house at the time of the purchase. Held, that they were not included in the bill of sale; that the subject of negotiation was the farm and personal property connected therewith, and said articles having no connection with the farm, it was not to be presumed that they were in the contemplation of the parties, as in order to pass title the bill of sale should be clear and free from reasonable doubt; that the general words would be construed as covering only the same kind of property as the items enumerated. (Rowlings v. Jermvngs, 13 Yes., 39; Crichton v. /Symes, 3 Atk., 61; Trafford v. Berrige, 1 Eq. Ca. Abr., 201; Tvmewell v. Perkms, 2 Atk., 103 ; Cook v. Oakley, 1 P. W., 302; Porter v. Tourna/y, 3 Yes., 311; Hotham v. Sutton, 15 Yes., 319; Boon v. Cornforth, 2 Yes., Sr., 277.)
Beckwith & Doble for the appellant.
Smith M. Weed for the respondent.

Opinion:
Earl, C,
reads for reversal.
All concur.
Judgment reversed.