Bennett v. Hull

Decided August 15, 1813

New York Supreme Court · decided 1813-08-15

IN ERROR, on certiorari, from a justice’s court. Hull sued Bennett before the justice, for a breach of promise, in not delivering to the plaintiff, on board of his vessel, 100 barrels of apples, whenever the vessel should be ready^to receive them, and the defendant was then to receive payment1 in liquors* &c. out of the plaintiff’s store.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1813-08-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 1907

2 federal appellate · 4 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Per Curiam.

¶1Under the 15th section of our statute of frauds, (sess. 10. c. 44.) and which is the same as the 17th section of the x ' English statute, ho contract for the sale of goods, unless there be a delivery of part, or earnest given, or a note or memorandum ™ writing, is valid. Here is neither; and as the price of the 100 barrels of apples is presumed to have been above 25 dollars, * a a this case was clearly within the statute of frauds. The statute applies as well to executory as to other contracts; and the decisions of the English courts, on this point, in Rondeau v. Wyatt, (2 II. Bl. 63.) and in Cooper v. Elston, (7 Term Rep. 14.) contain the sound and just construction of the statute.

¶2Judgment reversed.