Case Name: Dreyfuss v. Foster et al.
Court: New York City Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1888-12-20
Citations: 3 N.Y.S. 54
Docket Number: 
Parties: Dreyfuss v. Foster et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 3
Pages: 54–59

Head Matter:
Dreyfuss v. Foster et al.
(City Court of New York, General Term.
December 20,1888.)
1. Sale—Refusal to Accept Goods—Damages—Stoeage.
In an action for refusal to accept goods sold, plaintiff cannot recover for storage of the goods.
2. Same—Estoppel—Judgment foe Value of Goods.
Judgment on the pleadings, in such action, for the price of the goods, set forth as items of damage, and payment thereof by defendants, does not preclude defendants-from resisting recovery for storage, as to which item of damages the action was continued.
3. Same—Stoeage—Evidence.
The recovery by a seller for storage of goods for purchasers must be limited to-reasonable warehouse charges, and it is error to permit plaintiff to testify as to the value of the room occupied by the goods in his building, which is not a warehouse, and the error is not cured by an instruction that plaintiff could recover only what a warehouseman would recover for like services, the jury being further told that they might accept, as to the value of the storage, plaintiff’s evidence or the evidence of warehousemen called by defendants.
Appeal from trial term.
Action by Bernard Dreyfuss against Meyer Foster and others, for refusal to accept goods sold. Defendants appeal from judgment entered on verdict in favor of'plaintiff.
Argued before MoAdam, C. J., and Ehrlich, J.
Jos. E. Newburger, (B. E. Einstein, of counsel,) for appellants, Frankenheimer <& Rosenblatt, (John Frankenheimer, of counsel,) for respondent.

Opinion:
Ehrlich, J.
The complaint contains a single cause of action, which is for damages, direct and consequential, claimed for the breach of a written contract. Three elements of damage are alleged: First, refusal to accept or permit a delivery of 564 busts; second, refusal to pay one-half the cost of a model; and, third, as an item of special damage, $5.64 per day from February 27, 1886, to the date of the trial of the action, as the value of the use of the space in plaintiff's factory, occupied by the 564 busts, in consequence of defendants' wrongful refusal to accept the same. Prior to the trial, an order for judgment on the pleadings had been made, covering the first two items of damages, the amount thereof had been paid, and the action continued as to the third item. I am in favor of a reversal of the judgment appealed from, on the broad ground that the action is one for damages for breach of contract, and not for the agreed price of goods to be manufactured; and that the order for judgment is not an adjudication inconsistent with this construction, nor is defendant estopped or otherwise precluded from resisting, for this reason, the claim for storage. The complaint distinctly alleges that defendants refused to accept or permit a delivery, and claims damages therefor; therefore it should be held that there was no delivery, either in fact or in law, without which the title could not pass. I think also that the learned court below erred in allowing evidence as to the cost or value of cartage, and the value of storage room in plaintiff's factory, and that the latter error was not cured by the charge. The judgment should be reversed, and a new trial granted, costs to abide event.