Dexter v. Norton

Decided November 1, 1869

New York Supreme Court · decided 1869-11-01

THIS action was brought by George Dexter, the buyer, against Norton, Slaughter & Co., the sellers, to recover damages for the… Held: as to the first ground of the motion, that even if the usage were to be interpreted as claimed by the defendants, so as to conclude the buyer; in general, from the privilege of enforcing a demand made after the lapse of the ten days, yet, in this particular ease, that rigor was waived, and the time extended, by the acquiescence of…

Relies on Curtiss v. Prinderville

Decided 1869-11-01

Cardozo, J.

¶1I think there can be no doubt that this case was correctly disposed of at the circuit. It was conceded on the argument that the sale was of specific articles, *286and that the title vested in the vendee. That being so, it is well settled that the loss follows or attaches to the title. The vendor becomes simply a bailee, and cannot, where there is no fault upon his part, be liable by reason of the destruction of the bailment. (Curtiss v. Prinderville, 53 Barb. 186.)

¶2The judgment should be affirmed.

¶3i

¶4Geo. G. Barnard, J., concurred.