Am. Process Co. v. Pensauken Brick Co.
| Decision Date | 28 February 1910 |
| Citation | 78 N.J.L. 658,75 A. 976 |
| Parties | AMERICAN PROCESS CO. v. PENSAUKEN BRICK CO. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Error to Supreme Court.
Action by the American Process Company against the Pensauken Brick Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Affirmed.
Mahlon Van Booskirk and John W. Wescott, for plaintiff in error.
French & Richards and Abraham Tulin, for defendant in error.
This writ of error brings up for review a judgment rendered by the trial judge sitting without a jury at the Camden circuit in favor of the American Process Company against the Pensauken Brick Company for breach of contract.
At the trial the evidence tended to show the facts following: On June 22, 1906, the Pensauken Brick Company entered into a written contract with the Standard Brick Machinery Company for the purchase of the machinery necessary for the conduct of the brick making business of the Pensauken Company. One item of the machinery thus contracted for was an "American Process Sand Drier." By the terms of the contract the buyer was not to acquire title to any part of the machinery until the whole agreed price was paid. To fulfill its contract, the Standard Brick Company purchased of the American Process Company an "American Process Sand Drier," on the condition that title should remain in the seller until the full purchase price was paid. This drier was delivered and installed in the plant of the Pensauken Company, but the full purchase price was never paid. On November 26, 1906, the American Process Company notified the Pensauken Company of the condition of the contract relative to payment for the drier between the Standard Brick Company and the American Process Company. This notice was duly and without protest acknowledged the next day. Thereafter further notice was given that the American Process Company would reclaim the drier under the provisions of the two contracts respecting title, unless the balance of the purchase price was paid, This notice and demand for payment resulted, after some negotiation, in a demand by the Pensauken Company that the American Process Company obtain an order from the Standard Brick Company for the amount of its claim. This request was at once complied with, and receipt of the order was duly acknowledged by the Pensauken Company on February 16, 1907. Payment then not being made, suit was threatened, and on March 29, 1907, the Pensauken Company made a definite promise to pay on the delivery to it of another order from the Standard Brick Company. This order was at once delivered. On April 1, 1907, the Pensauken Company, by its attorney, acknowledged receipt of the second order, and asked two weeks' time in which to make payment, definitely promising to pay at the end of that time. The American Process Company at once granted this request, agreeing not to bring suit until after the expiration of the two weeks. When that time expired, the claim was still unpaid, and, in answer to a further letter threatening suit, the Pensauken Company, by its treasurer, wrote on April 19, 1907, that "this matter will be positively adjusted in the course of a few days." Subsequently, the claim not being paid, this suit was brought by the American Process Company against the Pensauken Company upon the promise to pay the balance due upon the contract price of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Winters
...materiality in the evidentiary sense. United States v. Whitlock, 456 F.2d 1230 (10 Cir. 1972). See American Process Co. v. Pensauken Brick Co., 78 N.J.L. 658, 75 A. 976 (E. & A.1910). See also Evid.R. 1(2), 30, 53 and Some hints may be found in the old cases. In State v. Voorhis, 52 N.J.L. ......
-
Willoughby v. Jamison
...Modern Law of Evidence, § 16. Facts essential to support a judgment are material to the issue. 22 C.J. 164; American Process Co. v. Pensauken Brick Co., 78 N.J.L. 658, 75 A. 976. Evidence directed to proof of an immaterial issue is not material. Fry v. Provident Sav. L. Assur. Soc., Tenn. C......
-
Int'l Dye & Print Works, Inc. v. Fashion Screen Printing Co.
...it would only constitute grounds for reversal if it injuriously affected substantial rights of the plaintiff. American Process Co. v. Pensauken Brick Co, 78 N.J.Law, 658, 75 A. 976; Mockabee v. English, 174 A. 557, 12 N.J.Misc. 733, 736. We fail to see in what way this evidence was harmful ......
-
Bodner v. Phoinix Indem. Co.
...subsequent to the accident was irrelevant and immaterial to the issue, and will not lead to a reversal. American Process Co. v. Pensauken Brick Co., 78 N. J. Law, 658, 75 A. 976. Lastly, it is argued that there must be a reversal because the trial court refused to allow the witness Thomas B......