Case Name: METROPOLITAN LUMBER COMPANY, A CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. JOHN H. DUNN & SONS, A CORPORATION, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
Court: New Jersey Court of Errors and Appeals
Jurisdiction: New Jersey
Decision Date: 1916-11-20
Citations: 89 N.J.L. 714
Docket Number: 
Parties: METROPOLITAN LUMBER COMPANY, A CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. JOHN H. DUNN & SONS, A CORPORATION, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Judges: 
Reporter: New Jersey Law Reports
Volume: 89
Pages: 714–715

Head Matter:
METROPOLITAN LUMBER COMPANY, A CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. JOHN H. DUNN & SONS, A CORPORATION, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Submitted July 10, 1916
Decided November 20, 1916.
On appeal from the Supreme Court, in which the following per curiam was filed:
“The plaintiff sued to recover the price of lumber sold to the defendant September 9th, 1914, and delivered November 7th, 1914.
“The delivery and non-payment was admitted.
“It appeared that on September 16th, 1914, the plaintiff sold the defendant other lumber which was delivered with the first lot.
“The first lot was sold on thirty days’ credit and a promissory note was to have been given therefor, but was not given. The second lot was sold ‘for cash.’
“The second lot not being paid for a judgment was obtained for the price thereof.
“In the present suit, which was for the first lot, the defendant moved for judgment in its favor ‘on the ground that the whole debt for the purchase price of the goods sold constituted an entire and inseparable demand and that judgment having been entered in the first suit for a part of the demand, the matter was res adjutMcala.’
“This motion was denied, and the trial judge, sitting without a jury, found for the plaintiff.
“We think this was proper.
“It is clear that each sale constituted a separate cause for action.
“It is true that on November 27th, 1914, a promissory note was given by defendant to the plaintiff covering the entire indebtedness, but that note fell due and was dishonored before either suit was brought. Its only effect, of course, was to postpone the time of payment until the maturity of the note. When at maturity, it was unpaid, the plaintiff’s right of action was the same as before it was given.
“The judgment below will be affirmed, with costs.”
For the defendant-appellant, Joseph E. Conlon.
For the plaintiff-respondent, Nathan H. Berger.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The judgment under review will he affirmed, for the reasons set forth in the opinion of the Supreme Court.
For affirmance — Tire Chancellor, Citiee Justice, Swatze, Parker, Bergen, Mtnturn, .Kalisch, White, Heppenhetmer, Williams, Tavlor, JJ. 11.
For reversal—None.