Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Robert Palmer, Respondent, v. Daniel Kelly, Appellant, 1874 — 56 N.Y. 637 · caselaw · US
Contracts · MBE-tested
Robert Palmer, Respondent, v. Daniel Kelly, Appellant
56 N.Y. 637·New York Court of Appeals·1874·NY
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
Robert Palmer, Respondent, v. Daniel Kelly, Appellant.
(Argued March 25, 1874;
decided April 7, 1874.)
This was an action to recover damages for an alleged unlawful taking and conversion of a quantity of household furniture.
The furniture in question was delivered by defendant to plaintiff under a contract, by which plaintiff was to purchase and pay therefor in installments as specified, and upon full payment the property was to be his, he was also to keep the property insured for the benefit of defendant ; in case of failure to perform, defendant was authorized to retake the property. Plaintiff did not keep the property insured. There was no evidence of waiver or that defendant knew of the non-insurance. The court charged that plaintiff was bound to keep the property insured, and on failure defendant had the right to take possession, unless the jury found some evidence that he had waived this right. Defendant’s counsel requested the court to charge that, plaintiff having failed to insure, defendant was entitled to take possession. The court refused to charge otherwise than had been charged. Held, error, as the court was not warranted in submitting the question of waiver to the jury.
Edward Brown for the respondent.
Daniel Kelly for the appellant.
[MAJORITY — Johnson, J.,]
Johnson, J.,
reads for reversal and new trial.
All concur.
Judgment reversed.