Case Name: William C. Rowley, Appellant, v. Lauren C. Woodruff, Respondent
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1872-12-24
Citations: 50 N.Y. 700
Docket Number: 
Parties: William C. Rowley, Appellant, v. Lauren C. Woodruff, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 50
Pages: 700–701

Head Matter:
William C. Rowley, Appellant, v. Lauren C. Woodruff, Respondent.
(Argued December 19, 1872;
decided December 24, 1872.)
Appeal from judgment of the General Term of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, entered upon an order denying motion for a new trial. The court upon the trial nonsuited the plaintiff and ordered the complaint to be dismissed, and ordered exceptions to be heard at first instance at special Term.
This action was brought to recover the last installment due upon a contract between one Farquharson and defendant, and assigned by the former to plaintiff.
Farquharson contracted to sell to defendant an interest in a patent right already in use for bleaching paper and pulp, and also an interest in &■ patent right that had been applied for but not obtained for preparing the material and reducing it to pulp preparatory to bleaching, for a sum in gross.
Farquharson agreed to put “ the said process ” in operation at once in the mill of defendant, and did provide and put in successful and satisfactory operation the process for bleaching. Defendant paid a part of the purchase-price at the time of making the contract, and agreed to pay the balance by installments ; one installment as soon as the process should be put in successful operation and prove to be all that was claimed for it, and the residue say twelve or eighteen months from the making of the contract. All the payments but the last were made. The patent for preparing and reducing the material to pulp proved a failure. It was a condition of the payment of the several amounts that the “ said process shall work successfully and practically, and shall perform with the economy and dispatch that is claimed for it.” Held, that the condition referred solely to the process for bleaching, and, as that did work as agreed by the condition, the plaintiff was entitled to recover.
George F. Dcmforth for the appellant.
Cyrus F. Demis for the respondent.

Opinion:
Alleit, J.,
reads opinion for reversal and new trial.
All concur.
Judgment reversed.