Case Name: Luther R. Tryon and Fred L. Tryon, Respondents, v. William H. Plumb, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1897-09
Citations: 20 A.D. 530
Docket Number: 
Parties: Luther R. Tryon and Fred L. Tryon, Respondents, v. William H. Plumb, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 20
Pages: 530–532

Head Matter:
Luther R. Tryon and Fred L. Tryon, Respondents, v. William H. Plumb, Appellant.
Executory contract of sale — recovery of the money paid on the delivery of the goods on the ground 'that they were not as they were represented to he.
Where, under an agreement, by a vendor to furnish from his own apples and those he-might procure from h'is neighbors, a certain quantity of apples of a designated quality, to be psjid for on delivery, the vendees receive the apples when- ' delivered and make no! offer to return them, they are not entitled thereafter to recover the payment made under the contract on the ground that the apples . were not as represented by the vendor. ■
Appeal by the defendant, William II. Plumb, from a judgment of the County Court of Franklin "county, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Franklin on the 23d day of November, 1896, upon the verdict of a jury, and also from an order denying the defendant’s motion for a new trial made upon the minutes.
This action was brought to recover the sum of $135, paid by the plaintiffs upon the purchase price of a carload of apples, which, they alleged, were, when delivered, of an inferior quality and not as represented by the defendant.
John P. Kellas, for the appellant.
J. W. Webb, for the respondents.
The decision in this case was handed down October 1, 1897.

Opinion:
Putnam, J.:
. After a careful review of the evidence contained in the case, we are of the opinion that the agreement under which the plaintiffs sought to maintain the action was an executory contract of sale. The apples which the defendant agreed to deliver were not separated from other apples owned by him ; some of them were to be procured from other parties. At the time of making the contract, no designated apples were transferred to the plaintiffs, the defendant merely agreeing to furnish to them from his own apples and those that he might procure, a certain quantity of apples of a designated quality.
The plaintiff Luther R. Tryon testified: " I think these apples were to be delivered at North Bangor depot. My son was to superintend the barrelling. We were to examine the apples as they were put in the barrel. The defendant said he thought he could buy some from his neighbor and fill out the contract. These apples were to be paid for when they were delivered." The plaintiff Fred L. Tryon testified : " He (the defendant) picked out a sample of the apples as they would average, different kinds of apples. ' I took the sample to Moira. Q. Were the apples sold by the sample? A. Yes, sir. He said-the apples would be like those samples. This was before the apples were delivered. He said those samples would be the kind he would pick out for us. He said that he would get the apples sorted so that we could come down and get them the -last of the week, or the first of the next week following."
Under the principles settled in Mason et al. v. Smith et al. (28 N. Y. St. Repr. 519) and the authorities' cited in the opinion of Landon, J., in the case, the plaintiffs, not having returned or offered to return the . apples, were not entitled to recover.
In the case cited the plaintiff had agreed to sell to the defendant a bill of gloves of the quality of samples shown. The defendant received and did not return the goods when delivered. . It was held no defense that the said goods did not correspond with the samples; that the defendant, if the goods as delivered were not those he agreed to purchase, should have refused to receive them. (See, also, The Coplay Iron Co. v. Pope et al., 108 N. Y. 232.)
It may be said that in the contract passed upon in Mason et al. v. Smith et al. the gloves were to be manufactured or imported after the making of the contract, while in the case under consideration the agreement was to sell apples then, in part at least; in the possession of the defendant. But the apples were not separated from other apples owned by the defendant, and a portion agreed to be delivered were to be procured! from other jiarties. Hence, we think the principle of the cases cited applies, and that the judgment and order should be. reversed and a n'ew trial granted, costs to abide the event.
All concurred.
Judgment and order reversed, new trial granted, costs to abide' the event.