Case Name: Roy Realty Company, Respondent, v. B. Altman & Co., Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1920-11-12
Citations: 194 A.D. 43
Docket Number: 
Parties: Roy Realty Company, Respondent, v. B. Altman & Co., Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 194
Pages: 43–46

Head Matter:
Roy Realty Company, Respondent, v. B. Altman & Co., Appellant.
First Department,
November 12, 1920.
Sales — contract for sale of goods to be imported during war — judicial notice as to difficulty of importing goods — delivery “ as soon as possible ” — complaint not stating cause of action — failure of plaintiff to allege that defendant could have procured goods.
The court will take judicial notice of the fact that in 1915, when all the great powers were engaged in war and when our own country might be involved therein at any time, trade conditions were extremely unsettled and importation was practically impossible.
Hence, where during that period the defendant agreed to sell certain goods to the plaintiff, delivery to be made “ as soon as possible,” the fulfillment of the contract was conditional upon the possibility of the defendant’s securing the merchandise from abroad which it agreed to sell and the plaintiff cannot recover for a breach of the contract without showing that it was possible for the defendant to procure the goods for which the contract called.
A complaint which fails to allege that the defendant could have procured the goods which it agreed to sell is subject to demurrer.
Page, J., and Clarke, P. J., dissent, with opinion.
Appeal by the defendant, B. Altman & Co., from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the New York Special Term, bearing date the 28th day of April, 1920, and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York, overruling the •defendant’s demurrer to the complaint and granting leave to the defendant to serve an answer.
S. Hanford, for the appellant.
Edward S. Clinch, for the respondent.

Opinion:
Smith, J.:
This contract was made upon June 1, 1915. At the time that it was made all of the great powers were engaged in war. The situation was such that at any time our country, the United States,» might be involved in the same war. Trade conditions were in an extremely unsettled state. Importation was practically impossible. Transportation in this country was crippled, and the manufacture of many articles in this country was either stopped or seriously limited by these unsettled conditions. Of these facts the court will take judicial notice. They are matters of common knowledge. This contract read in the light of these .existing conditions can only mean that the fulfillment of this contract was conditional upon the possibility of the defendant's securing merchandise which it agreed to sell. Under this construction the plaintiff cannot recover without showing that it was possible for the defendant to procure the linens for which the contract called. Whichever party may have the burden of first introducing evidence as to the possibility or non-possibility of the performance of the contract, the burden ultimately rests upon the plaintiff to show that the contract was possible of fulfillment before suit was brought, and with that burden the plaintiff's cause of action is incomplete without an allegation to that effect.
The allegation of the defendant's refusal to perform its contract before the commencement of the action is not an allegation of the breach of the contract, unless it were possible for the defendant to have performed at the time of the refusal.
The cases cited in the opinion of Mr. Justice Page are cases that apply to trade under normal conditions, and are not applicable to conditions existing at the time of the making of this contract.
The order should, therefore, be reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and the demurrer sustained, with ten dollars costs, with leave to the plaintiff to serve an amended complaint on payment of said costs.
Latjghlin, J., concurs; Dowling, J., concurs in result; Clarke, P. J., and Page, J., dissent.