Miller v. Ungerer Co. No. 1

3 Citing cases

  1. Frankel v. Foreman Clark

    33 F.2d 83 (2d Cir. 1929)   Cited 9 times

    But the burden of showing that the goods as delivered met the requirements of the contract and in this case corresponded with the sample was upon the plaintiffs. Pope v. Allis, 115 U.S. 363, 6 S. Ct. 69, 29 L. Ed. 393; Société Bordelaise de Conserves Produits Alimentaires v. Wood Selick, 188 App. Div. 267, 177 N YS. 14; Miller v. Ungerer Co., 188 App. Div. 655, at page 657, 176 N.Y.S. 850; Thomson Co. v. International Compositions Co., 191 App. Div. 553, at page 556, 181 N.Y.S. 637; Union Broach Co. v. Guterman (Sup.) 187 N.Y.S. 477; Ridless v. Polacoff (Sup.) 175 N.Y.S. 756; Grand Union Folding Box Co. v. Rose Mirror Works (Sup.) 173 N.Y.S. 433; Zoller v. Morse, 130 Mass. 267; Bianchi Granite Co. v. Terre Haute Monument Co., 91 Vt. 177, 99 A. 875. In Williston on Sales (2d Ed.) § 255, the author says:

  2. Smiley Steel Co., Inc. v. Schmoll

    200 App. Div. 655 (N.Y. App. Div. 1922)   Cited 3 times

    In order to maintain an action for the price the seller must prove that the title passed to the buyer. (Sales of Goods Act, Pers. Prop. Law, § 144, as added by Laws of 1911, chap. 571; Miller v. Ungerer Co., No. 1, 188 App. Div. 655, 660.) The plaintiffs clearly had no title to the goods that they could pass.

  3. Pottash v. Cleveland-Akron Bag Co.

    197 App. Div. 763 (N.Y. App. Div. 1921)   Cited 4 times

    In order to maintain an action for the price the seller must prove that the title passed to the buyer. (Sales of Goods Act, Pers. Prop. Law, § 144, as added by Laws of 1911, chap. 571; Miller v. Ungerer Co., No. 1, 188 App. Div. 655, 660.) The plaintiffs clearly had no title to the goods that they could pass.