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.
Joseph Noble et al., Appellants, v. Henry Queripel, Respondent, 1875 — 61 N.Y. 658 · caselaw · US
Contracts · MBE-tested
Joseph Noble et al., Appellants, v. Henry Queripel, Respondent
61 N.Y. 658·New York Commission of Appeals·1875·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
Joseph Noble et al., Appellants, v. Henry Queripel, Respondent.
(Argued September 23, 1874;
decided January term, 1875.)
This was an action to recover the contract-price for a quantity of coal sold and delivered by plaintiffs to defendant. Defendant set up as a counter-claim a breach of the contract on the part of plaintiffs, in failing to deliver the quantity covered by the contract. The only question was as to the construction of the contract, plaintiffs claiming that the coal was to be delivered on the . Delaware river, near Philadelphia, at the market price when shipped; the defendant, that it was to be delivered in New York, at four dollars and forty-five cents per ton. It was held that the defendant’s construction of the contract was correct.
Joseph A. Welch for the appellants.
N. B. Hoxie for the respondent.
[MAJORITY — Reynolds, C.,]
Reynolds, C.,
reads for affirmance.'
All concur.
J udgment affirmed.