Court Opinion

ID: 3602460
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-07-05 23:48:34.255416+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:56:58.128870
License: Public Domain

[EDITORS' NOTE:  THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 74 
[EDITORS' NOTE:  THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 75 
The contract required that the hops should be inspected by J.S. Brown, or some other inspector satisfactory to both parties. In case J.S. Brown could not, or should not inspect them for any reason, then they were to be inspected by some other person mutually satisfactory. Neither party had the right to demand any other inspector, unless Brown neglected or refused to inspect. It is doubtless unusual to insert a stipulation in contracts, that the vendor shall inspect the goods sold. But where parties agree to this, they must be bound by their contract, and it must be construed the same as if some other person had been chosen inspector.
It is claimed on the part of the respondent, and was held by the court below, that the inspection provided for was intended simply for the convenience of the vendors, to enable them to perform their contract, and that it merely furnished primafacie evidence that the hops answered the contract, and that the inspection was not conclusive upon the parties. I cannot assent to this. The contract was for the sale and purchase of hops of a certain description, and the object of the inspection was to determine for the benefit of both parties, whether they answered that description. Until the vendors delivered the hops with the inspection, the vendee was not obliged to pay, and when so delivered, the vendors *Page 77 
were entitled to the purchase price. The inspection was thus as much for the convenience and benefit of one party as the other. Its purpose, like similar provisions in a variety of contracts, was to prevent dispute and litigation at, and after performance. But if the inspection was merely for the convenience of the vendors, then they could dispense with it, and compel the vendees to take the hops without any inspection whatever. And if it was merely prima facie evidence of the quality of the hops, then it was an idle ceremony, because, not being binding, the vendee could still dispute the quality of the hops, refuse to take them, and show, if he could, when sued for not taking them, that they did not answer the requirements of the contract; and thus the plain purpose for which the provision was inserted in the contract would be entirely defeated.
The inspection could be assailed for fraud, or bad faith in making it, and perhaps within the case of McMahon v. The NewYork  Erie Railroad Co. (20 N.Y., 463), because made without notice to the vendee. The inspection here was made without notice; but it is not necessary to determine whether this renders it invalid, as no such defence was intimated in the answer or upon the trial.
By the purchase of the contract the defendants were substituted, as to its performance, in the place of the vendee therein named, and were bound to do all that he had agreed to do or was bound in law to do. When notified that the hops were ready for delivery they declined to take them, upon the sole ground that they had not had an opportunity to examine or inspect them; and they claimed that they had sent one Smith to inspect them, and that he had been declined permission to inspect them. There was no proof, however, that they ever tried to examine or inspect the hops, or that the vendors ever refused to permit them to examine or inspect them. They sent Smith to inspect them, and he went to one of the several storehouses where some of the hops were stored, and he says he was there refused an opportunity to inspect them by Mr. A.A. Brown. But there is *Page 78 
no proof that he was in any way connected with the vendor, or that he had any agency or authority whatever from them. There was no proof that defendants ever tried with the vendors to agree upon any other inspector, or that they ever asked the vendors to have the hops inspected by any other inspector, and they made no complaint at any time that they were inspected without notice to them. The point that they should have had notice of the inspection was not taken in the motion for a nonsuit, nor in any of the requests to the court to charge the jury. If the point had been taken in the answer or on the trial, the plaintiff might, perhaps, have shown that notice was given by the vendors, or that it was waived.
Hence we must hold, upon the case as presented to us, that there was no default on the part of the plaintiff or the vendors, and that the defendants were in default in not taking and paying for the hops. The only other question to be considered is, whether the court erred in the rule of damages adopted in ordering the verdict.
The court decided that the plaintiff was entitled to recover the difference between the contract price and the price obtained by the plaintiff upon the resale of the hops, and refused, upon the request of the defendants, to submit to the jury the question as to the market value of the hops on or about the 30th day of November.
The vendor of personal property in a suit against the vendee for not taking and paying for the property, has the choice ordinarily of either one of three methods to indemnify himself. (1.) He may store or retain the property for the vendee, and sue him for the entire purchase price. (2.) He may sell the property, acting as the agent for this purpose of the vendee, and recover the difference between the contract price and the price obtained on such resale; or (3.) He may keep the property as his own, and recover the difference between the market price at the time and place of delivery, and the contract price. (2 Parsons on Con., 484; Sedgwick on Dams., 282; Lewis v. Greider, 49 Barb., 606;Pollen v. *Page 79 LeRoy, 30 N.Y., 549.) In this case the plaintiff chose and the court applied the second rule above mentioned. In such case, the vendor is treated as the agent of the vendee to make the sale, and all that is required of him is, that he should act with reasonable care and diligence, and in good faith. He should make the sale without unnecessary delay, but he must be the judge as to the time and place of sale, provided he act in good faith and with reasonable care and diligence. Here it is conceded that the sale was fairly made; it was made in the city of New York, in less than one month from the time the defendants refused to take the hops. It was not claimed on the trial that the delay was unreasonable and we can find nothing in the case to authorize us to hold that it was unjustifiable. We are, therefore, of the opinion, that the court did not err as to the rule of damages.
The judgment should therefore be affirmed with costs.
For affirmance, LOTT, Ch. C., EARL and HUNT, CC. GRAY, C., was for reversal, on the ground that the delay in selling was too great.
LEONARD, C., did not vote.
Judgment affirmed with costs.