Case Name: Imperial Products Company, Inc., Appellant, v. Capitol Chemical Company, Respondent
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1919-05-05
Citations: 187 A.D. 599
Docket Number: 
Parties: Imperial Products Company, Inc., Appellant, v. Capitol Chemical Company, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 187
Pages: 599–603

Head Matter:
Imperial Products Company, Inc., Appellant, v. Capitol Chemical Company, Respondent.
First Department,
May 5, 1919.
Sale — right of buyer under subdivision 3 of section 128 of Personal Property Law to inspect goods shipped by carrier before acceptance and payment — when delivery and payment are concurrent obligations.
In order to entitle a buyer to examine goods under subdivision 3 of section 128 of the Personal Property Law the following conditions must exist: (1) Goods must be delivered to a carrier; (2) with instructions that the carrier is not to deliver the goods to the buyer until paid for; (3) this must have been done pursuant to an agreement between the buyer and seller; (4) such an arrangement may be indicated by the marking of the goods “ collect on delivery ” or otherwise.
This subdivision applies only to shipments by carrier when the terms of the contract of sale provide that the carrier shall collect on delivery. The controlling element is the agreement of the parties and not the method of shipment by the seller.
Where no terms of payment are specified in the agreement between the parties delivery and payment are concurrent obligations.
Where there is no provision in the agreement between the parties inconsistent with the right of inspection before acceptance and payment the seller cannot deprive the buyer of that right by adopting a method of collection not provided in the agreement.
Dowling, J., and Clarke, P. J., dissented, with opinion.
Appeal by the plaintiff, Imperial Products Company, Inc., from an order and determination of the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court in favor of the defendant, entered in the office of the clerk of the City Court of the City of New York on the 15th day of May, 1918, reversing a judgment of said City Court and dismissing the complaint.
Goodman Bloch of counsel [Milton Mayer, attorney], for the appellant.
Francis X. Carmody .of counsel [Carmody & Carswell, attorneys], for the respondent.

Opinion:
Page, J.:
Four conditions must exist to bring a case within subdivision 3 of section 128 of the Personal Property Law (Consol. Laws, chap. 41 [Laws of 1909, chap. 45], as added by Laws of 1911, chap. 571). (1) Goods must be delivered to a carrier; (2) with instructions that the carrier is not to deliver the goods to the buyer until paid for; (3) this must have been done pursuant to an agreement between the buyer and seller; (4) such an arrangement may be indicated .by the marking of the goods " collect on delivery " or otherwise. In my opinion, this subdivision does not apply to every shipment by a carrier, but only to such shipments when the terms of the contract of sale provide that the carrier shall collect on delivery. The controlling element is the agreement of the parties, and not the method of shipment by the seller. In this case there was no agreement that the shipment should be made " collect on delivery," nor was there any agreement that the buyer would pay the purchase price by sight draft to be attached to the bill of lading. No, terms of payment were specified in the agreement between the parties. Under such a contract, delivery and payment are concurrent obligations. (Pers. Prop. Law, § 123, as added by Laws of 1911, chap. 571.) This is very different from payment of the purchase price by sight draft with bill of lading attached. In the first, the buyer has the right of inspection to ascertain whether the goods are in conformity with the contract, when the seller tenders delivery, before he is required to accept and pay for the goods. In the latter, payment is a condition precedent to delivery and hence incon sistent with the right of inspection. (Plumb v. Hallauer & Sons Co., 145 App. Div. 20; Pers. Prop. Law, § 128, subd. 2, as added by Laws of 1911, chap. 571.) Inasmuch as there was no provision in the agreement between the parties inconsistent with the right of inspection before acceptance and payment^ the seller could not deprive the buyer of that right by adopting a method of collection not provided in the agreement. (Williston Sales, 840.)
In my opinion the judgment of the City Court was right, and the determination of the Appellate Term should be reversed, with costs in this court and the Appellate Term, and the judgment of the City Court affirmed.
Smith and Shearn, JJ., concurred; Clarke, P. J., and Dowling, J., dissented.