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.
Andrew Williams et al., Respondents, v. John S. Gould et al., Appellants, 1872 — 51 N.Y. 640 · caselaw · US
Contracts · MBE-tested
Andrew Williams et al., Respondents, v. John S. Gould et al., Appellants
51 N.Y. 640·New York Commission of Appeals·1872·NY
All concur for affirmance, except Gbay, C., dissenting.
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
Andrew Williams et al., Respondents, v. John S. Gould et al., Appellants.
(Argued May 22,1872;
decided September term, 1872.)
This action was brought to recover the purchase-price of a quantity of horse-shoe iron alleged to have been sold by plaintiffs to defendants.
The principal question in the case was as to whether there had been such an acceptance of the iron as to take a parol contract for the sale thereof out of the operation of the statute of frauds. The majority of the court held there was an acceptance, and that the sale was valid.
Robert S. Hale for the appellants.
Smith M. Weed, for the respondents.
[MAJORITY — Earl, C.,]
Earl, C.,
reads for affirmance; G&ay, C., for reversal.
All concur for affirmance, except Gbay, C., dissenting.
Judgment affirmed.